Hansard — Wednesday, October 31, 2007 p.m.


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		8965

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8965
	Minimum wage
	C. James
	Port of Prince Rupert
	J. Rustad
	Learning Disabilities Awareness Month
	R. Fleming
	Gang violence
	D. Hayer
	Ladysmith Maritime Society
	D. Routley
	Autism spectrum disorder
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		8967
	Sexual abuse intervention program report
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	R. Fleming
	C. James
	Minimum wage
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. O. Ilich
	J. Kwan
	Energy plan policy for surface water reinjection
	S. Simpson
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions		8973
	C. James
	M. Farnworth
	R. Austin
	D. MacKay
	J. McIntyre
	D. Routley
	H. Lali
	R. Chouhan
	R. Fleming
	B. Ralston
	S. Simpson
	K. Conroy
	J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House		8973
	Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act (Bill 40) (continued)
	R. Austin
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Lekstrom
	D. Jarvis
	H. Lali
	G. Gentner
	S. Simpson
	M. Sather

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)		8993

C. James: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to make four introductions to the House today. Joining us in the gallery are Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; and Angela Schira, secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Also joining us today are Brent Frain and Valerie Rogers. Brent and Valerie are both low-wage workers employed at a Langley McDonald's.

They're here today meeting with MLAs from both sides of the House, calling for an increase in the minimum wage. Would the House please make our guests very welcome.

D. Hayer: It's my honour to introduce today a very special guest: Ashok Kumar, consul general for India for western Canada, who's based in Vancouver. He always helps all British Columbians when they need information about India. Would the House please make him very welcome.

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant. As with everyone here, we all depend a great deal on our assistants in our offices. Joy Orr is here, and I'd like you to join me in making her feel welcome.

B. Bennett: I also have someone to introduce from Columbia River–Revelstoke. Buzz Harmsworth is here. Buzz is the president of the Columbia River–Revelstoke B.C. Liberal Association. Welcome, Buzz.

D. Chudnovsky: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First, there are two residents of my constituency visiting the Legislature today to see how we do our business. I hope everyone behaves.

I'd like to introduce Dwarka Das Nayar and Sarwen Singh Hundel and ask that the members make them welcome, please.

Secondly, I have two introductions to make from the group who are here with the B.C. Federation of Labour to talk to members about raising the minimum wage.

I'd like to introduce to the House Adrienne Montani, who is a former school trustee in Vancouver and also a former chair of the Vancouver school board. She's the executive director of First Call B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, and she's also been a dear friend for more than 25 years. Welcome, Adrienne.

As well, with us today in the same group is Rev. Margaret Marquardt, who is also a good friend. She's pastor at St. Margaret's Anglican church in East Vancouver. Margaret is a perfect example of a person of faith who is engaged with her community and struggling for social justice every day. Please welcome Margaret Marquardt.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature Dr. Greg Lee, who is the president of Capilano College. He's been one of our great educators and has expanded the college all the way up the Sunshine Coast and all the way up the Sea to Sky to the Pemberton Valley area. Dr. Lee has also been one of those educators that firmly believes in adult literacy, and he's done a good job at it.

Also with Dr. Lee I'd like to mention the young people that are accompanying him. They are his faculty and students: Sandra Seekins, Ben Newsom, Stephanie Wood, Paul Dangerfield, Shelley Kean and, again, Dr. Lee, president of Capilano College. Would you please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce two very wonderful people here with us today, Chris Loscerbo and Pat Danforth, executive board members of B.C. Coalition of People. They're here to address the minimum-wage issue. Please join me to welcome them.

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure today to introduce a businessman from the riding of Burquitlam, Mr. Gerry Gill, who is president of Legend Power. He's been working in Burnaby for ten years, investing over $10 million, to bring from the lab to commercialization and conserve energy in British Columbia. Would the House please make Gerry Gill welcome.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to rise to ask us all to welcome Jamey Mills and Emily Ottewell. They're co-chairs of the B.C. Federation of Labour young workers committee. They are people who are concerned with worker safety, uplifting the standards of workers. I think we should all congratulate them for being involved in their community and engaged in the process as they are.

R. Fleming: Joining us in the gallery today, as well, is Mr. Shamus Reid, and he is the elected chairperson of the B.C. component of the Canadian Federation of Students. I know he's familiar to the minister and many members on both sides of the House. Will the House please make him feel welcome.

C. James: The minimum wage is an expression of the value our province places on hard work, and it's a barometer of our collective commitment to quality and to fairness. November 1 is a very special anniversary. It marks the sixth anniversary of the last time that B.C.'s lowest-paid workers received a raise.

In that time, costs have risen dramatically for everything from housing to ferry fares to gas prices,

Over 100,000 workers in B.C. make the minimum wage. A quarter of a million workers earn less than $10 an hour. They come from all walks of life and from all parts of our province. Students, new immigrants, parents and grandparents — for these British Columbians, making ends meet is a daily struggle. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and they play by the rules. But they don't see the rewards of their labour, and they don't see their lives improving.

As the sixth anniversary approaches, British Columbians are coming together to say that it is time to increase the minimum wage. Over 30 municipal councils have passed resolutions. The B.C. Federation of Labour's $10 Now campaign has collected tens of thousands of signatures, and they're joined by all sorts of organizations like the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the Canadian Federation of Students and many others.

These people are speaking with one voice. They have one message for everyone in this Legislature. That message is that after six years, it's time to give the lowest-paid workers in British Columbia a raise.

J. Rustad: Last night marked a milestone in northern B.C. The first container ship sailed into the Port of Prince Rupert and with it, the rebirth of the community.

The arrival of containers from China signals to the world that B.C. now has a new major high-speed, congestion-free container port with enormous potential for growth. This milestone has been a dream of northern B.C., and indeed for the entire province, ever since the railhead for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was created early in the 20th century.

Generations have looked to this port and hoped for the day when its full potential would be realized, and now that dream has become a reality. People in Prince Rupert were overwhelmed at an event celebrating this accomplishment. Quite literally, everyone had tears in their eyes.

The economic impact of the Port of Prince Rupert and its future will ripple throughout the province. Prince Rupert will be transformed. Trade patterns will change, and new opportunities will emerge.

In my community of Prince George, people are also celebrating. With the recent opening of the new transload inland container port, the first trainloads of containers carrying goods bound for Asia and beyond are already on their way to Prince Rupert.

The impact of the Port of Prince Rupert will spur growth, and according to the National Post, Prince Rupert and Prince George are Canada's number one and two communities for growth potential over the next decade.

Please join me in congratulating Prince Rupert and northern B.C. for their never-ending drive and optimism that helped to see this dream become a reality.

R. Fleming: As members of the House know, October is Learning Disabilities Awareness Month. The goal of the campaign is to generate grass-roots activities that will raise Canadian awareness of learning disabilities and the challenges faced by these individuals and their families. The campaign also aims to encourage everyone in the learning disabilities community to make time during October to share with the public what it is they do and how it contributes to the overall well-being of our communities.

The goal of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada is to increase support for research, identification, education, training and access to equitable services for individuals with learning disabilities. Individuals of all ages with learning disabilities and ADHD are sometimes subject to ridicule from peers and are often the objects of bullying behaviours. Low self-esteem is a frequent by-product of learning disabilities. There can be tragic results in the lives of young people with learning disabilities who aren't helped or supported in our schools or communities.

Studies illustrate that alienation and social conflict lead to dissociation from school settings. Adolescents and teens with learning disabilities who have not received proper academic supports and services run a much higher risk than average for becoming involved with tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Dropping out of school is linked strongly to functional illiteracy, and government is all too aware that teens who drop out are at much greater risk of becoming involved in illegal activities, including aggressive and antisocial behaviours and risky pregnancies. There is also a much greater likelihood of eventual incarceration.

Throughout this month all national, provincial and territorial learning disabilities associations and thousands of professionals involved with learning disabilities have been hard at work organizing local events and activities that introduce Canadians to learning disabilities.

I invite all members of this House to join me in encouraging British Columbians to support the local public education and outreach activities by disabilities groups and literacy and learning associations in your communities.

D. Hayer: Gang violence over the past two years has rocked not only my city of Surrey but the entire lower mainland, as well as other parts of Canada. Gangs are spreading everywhere. There are now more than 100 gangs in our province. They are recruiting our kids in school and destroying their lives directly and through the sale of devastating drugs.

We must get these criminals off our streets. We must make inroads into breaking up these gangs. We must cut off the flow of illegal guns, clamp down on their criminal activities and make gang membership unattractive.

One way is for our courts to get tougher by handing out more and longer sentences. Our Solicitor General is calling for that. I support him fully. I know the possibility of lengthy jail time may not be a deterrent to these gangsters, but it will put them out of action for a long time and slow the growth of violence that takes the lives of not only criminals but innocent victims such as those killed in Surrey.

History demonstrates that we may never eliminate gang violence, but we can make gang membership unappealing. Jail those who use guns in crime for at least ten years and killers for life. Make jail sentences consecutive for each conviction so criminals don't get discounts on multiple murders.

We must close the revolving door that sees ten and 20 convictions before these criminals get jail time. As most of the crime is done by a very small number of criminals, we have to stop the repeat offenders. The rights of the victims in society must be more important in our courts than the rights of criminals. We all have to work together to eliminate this menace.

D. Routley: I have the pleasure of rising to speak today about the Ladysmith Maritime Society. This non-profit, volunteer-run organization holds as its slogan "Heritage by the sea," and these volunteers strive to make that slogan a reality every day.

Fundraising has restored heritage vessels and allows the society to use them to take local residents and visitors on historic tours of Ladysmith Harbour. The society also runs a museum and maintains an archive to ensure that the rich maritime history of Ladysmith is not lost.

The people of Ladysmith truly do wish to keep their heritage by the sea alive. The society knows that to do that, they must ensure that boats and the maritime experience can continue to be part of our everyday lives. The society runs a vibrant marina where local residents can enjoy time on the docks or enjoy boating at a cost they can afford.

The marina charges far less than for-profit operations, thereby keeping this maritime experience within the budget of so many. The society also hosts one of the most successful purple martin recovery programs on the coast. They're also proud that the marina is home to our local disabled-sailing association.

The vessels Kirkegaard and Saravan have carried over a thousand people on tours. They have graced the Victoria Classic Boat Festival, and they promote Ladysmith far and wide. We are also the host of the Coast Guard's Kids Don't Float program.

The Ladysmith Maritime Society adds value to our community, and it offers experience to the lives of people of Ladysmith. Faced with increased pressure from a developing community, we must not lose sight of such non-profit efforts and their value.

I support the Maritime Society of Ladysmith and their effort to keep our heritage alive and to keep current our commitment to our history as vibrant communities recognizing our base in maritime history and forest industry.

B. Bennett: Today is the last day of Autism Awareness Month, and it gives me an opportunity to tell the House a little bit about what's being done today for autistic children and their families. Dave and Karen Cuthbertson from Cranbrook and their two children Rob and William are people who know about autism spectrum disorder. I thank Dave, in particular, for teaching me about ASD.

ASD interferes with the normal brain development. It affects reasoning, social interaction and communication. There is no single medical test for ASD, and the causes are not fully understood. Symptoms are usually evident by the age of three, which makes early diagnosis and early intervention critical.

Over the past eight years there has been a tremendous growth in the supports for children and youth with ASD. There has been a huge increase to the overall provincial budget. So $20,000 a year goes to parents to pay expenses. There's early intensive behavioral intervention, which is a one-on-one therapy that is available in a lot of the province but not all of the province. Hopefully, someday it will be available in some of the smaller communities.

There's also $16,000 a year now that goes to boards for each autistic student, in terms of special needs funding. Last year the funding was broadened to cover not only children diagnosed with autism but those on the entire autism spectrum.

British Columbians can be proud of the province's response to the challenges that ASD presents. We need to continue investing in autism research. We have studies going on at UBC today. There's a five-year national research study on ASD that includes 100 B.C. children, and recently there was an announcement of a new national chair for autism intervention research at Simon Fraser University.

We must also train more behaviour consultants, to increase the level of service for families and children affected by ASD, as Simon Fraser University is now doing. Progress is being made. This year Autism Awareness Month ends on a positive note.

M. Karagianis: Last spring the opposition asked the Minister of Children and Family Development about the Mary Manning Centre, a facility here on the south Island that's devoted to helping and protecting sexually abused children. The Mary Manning Centre had a long wait-list of children desperately needing help, and they were on the verge of having to make cuts to their services.

The minister refused to help. He said everything was just fine. Well, everything was not fine, and the minister knew it. On his desk was a review of the

sexual abuse intervention program that completely contradicted what the minister was telling us.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why he tried to cover up significant concerns about this sexual abuse program, and why did he once again put politics ahead of vulnerable children in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The services delivered by the Mary Manning Centre are important services, and the Mary Manning Centre is one of almost 50 sexual abuse intervention programs across this province. Those are programs that were initiated in 1990, and the sad fact is that they were largely ignored for a number of years.

What this government has done is initiate a review of those programs in 2006. That review has come up with a series of recommendations to improve those programs, and we're following through on those recommendations.

M. Karagianis: This is shameful. There is only one way to describe what this minister has done. It is a cover-up. He had the information on his desk. He knew there were unanimous concerns about services for sexually abused children across this province. He didn't tell this House, and he didn't tell the public.

When a reporter went digging, he found that the minister had something that he didn't want the public to see — a report prepared for the ministry that was very critical of this government's sexual abuse intervention program. And it doesn't end there.

The report, accessed through FOI, was whitewashed to eliminate any criticisms towards government. But an uncensored version was uncovered, which points to only one conclusion: a cover-up.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why his government tried to hide the truth about how he is failing sexually abused children in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: It may be convenient for the opposition to focus on a single point in a long review report, but let's look at what that review found. The review found that there was a lack of clear expectations or goals in client eligibility, in treatment interventions, in the intensity and duration of services provided — which raises questions about service quality across the province.

It found that programs and practices were out of alignment with the broader mental health system, a system where the funding has been doubled over the last five years because of the focus that this government has brought to child and youth mental health. There's a lack of consistency in contract deliverables and report expectations. And the report specifically recommended — and members should listen to this — that consideration of funding increases should await clarification of program mandate.

We have worked with the service provider community to establish draft standards, which are being shared with those providers so that we can ensure that there is quality across the province. We have worked with the provider community to provide additional training. This fall that training occurred in October, and there will be follow-up training.

All of that is going to ensure that the sexual abuse intervention program is part of the overall child and youth mental health context for this province and is going to improve child and youth services across this province.

M. Karagianis: The minister's level of denial on this is absolutely stunning; the government's level of denial on this is absolutely astounding.

When you put the two versions of the report side by side, it is very clear. All criticisms of the government are taken out — whitewashed. Positive comments are left in; negative ones were taken out.

From some of the severed pieces: "Funding has not kept pace with population growth and the increasing demand…. Inadequate funding for travel required to provide services within large geographic catchment areas…. Denial of access to children who still have contact with the offender." This is not a single point in a report, as the minister has alluded. These are all very serious concerns — all whitewashed.

The hon. Ted Hughes said very clearly that it was time to put children first in British Columbia. Again, to the minister: why is he still putting his political interests ahead of vulnerable children in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's unfortunate that the opposition is choosing to politicize this issue. We have a report that was conducted into a program that I believe to be important. It's a report that has made a number of strong recommendations in terms of improving service. The report speaks to the specific issues the member raises and suggests that we need to ensure that there are effective standards in place so that children and youth accessing these services know that the best practices are being followed and know they're getting the best services.

The members on that side spent ten years in government in this province ignoring the SAIP program, just like they ignored child and youth mental health generally.

This government has initiated a five-year child and youth mental health plan. We've doubled the funding to child and youth mental health. We are the envy of jurisdictions across this country in child and youth mental health services. We are now following through on a review of the SAIP program, which will ensure that those services are being delivered in the best possible manner to children and youth across British Columbia.

R. Fleming: Again, the minister severs all criticism of his ministry from this report. This isn't the first time that government…

R. Fleming: …has been caught red-handed abusing B.C.'s freedom-of-information laws for political purposes. Sadly, it isn't the first time they've tried to cover up failings when it comes to protecting children.

Last fall the opposition revealed an FOI which was sent inadvertently to the opposition, complete with handwritten sticky-notes. That FOI about child protection in the Coroner's Service had a handwritten note from the Deputy Solicitor General asking for more severing because it "contradicts what we've said to this point." The FOI also showed the public affairs bureau has been given sign-off authority by this government.

Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development: doesn't he agree that it is shameful that he and his government keep using FOI for political purposes to hide the truth about the state of services for abused children in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the opposition's interest in this sexual abuse intervention program, given that they ignored it for the ten years they were in government.

The question may elicit some understanding of how the NDP handled FOI requests when they were in government, but I can tell you that the Ministry of Children and Family Development receives well over a thousand FOI requests each year. I have nothing to do with a single one of those, but in fact we have a piece of legislation that balances access to information with a number of other considerations.

There are professional public servants within the ministry that receive those requests. They apply the legislation as they believe is appropriate. If the member has a difficulty or if any member of the public who has made a request has a difficulty with how the act has been applied, they have a very fair and independent means of addressing that. It's called the freedom-of-information commissioner.

R. Fleming: The minister says that kids come first, but the severed sections of the report say otherwise. It's been a cover-up, and it has used the FOI process as camouflage.

To the minister again: why did he force the Mary Manning Centre to make cuts and then cover up the sections of the report that suggested this is indeed a provincewide crisis?

Hon. T. Christensen: Because of a lack of oversight of this program since its inception in 1990, it was necessary to conduct a review, find out what is happening in the program, find out if the objectives are well laid out and find out if standards are being followed.

The review identified some significant concerns about the program itself. We have followed up on that review. We are following the recommendations, and we will end up with a sexual abuse intervention program in this province that is well integrated with the other broad range of child and youth mental health services and that results in better outcomes for children and families across the province.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, someone should remind this minister they've been government for six years, and they've done nothing to improve this program. They've hidden it from people on this program. If the minister is so proud of this program, I'd like to know why he hid the report from the public. He hid it because he doesn't want the information out there.

The minister said he had absolutely nothing to do with this. Well, let's take a look at the minister's own quote. Back in May we asked the minister about the budget for B.C.'s sexual abuse intervention program for children. Do you know what the minister said? "It hasn't been identified by communities as a priority for increase." The minister actually stood up in this Legislature and made those comments. He knew he was wrong, he knew there was a report, and he covered it up from the public.

The report says: "Providers were unanimous in their view that program funding is insufficient." So again to the Minister of Children and Family Development: if it wasn't a cover-up, if it wasn't putting politics in front of children, then what was it — incompetence or pure and simple neglect of children in B.C.?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm proud of what this government has accomplished for children and youth with mental health issues across this province — a child and youth mental health plan that is the envy of jurisdictions across Canada.

Hon. T. Christensen: The members may not be interested in this, but I actually care that these programs work well and are serving children and families.

The child and youth mental health plan also delivers programs beyond the SAIP program that address many of the symptomatic results of sexual abuse such as post-traumatic stress, depression and suicide risk prevention. It's a plan that now has an $85 million budget — $17 million in new funding in the last year alone.

The fact is that in the consultations with communities around the child and youth mental health plan broadly, the SAIP program was not identified as a priority. Of course, when we went and spoke specifically to SAIP providers, they indicated they would like to see more funding.

That's why we're following up on the review, and we will ensure that proper standards are in place and ensure that the program is designed to meet the needs of children and youth across the province.

C. James: Well, I don't know how the minister can talk about what he learned in the consultation, because he wiped it all out of the entire report — what the public said to anybody in the press.

It's very clear that the minister told us everything was fine and no one was concerned back in May, when he knew that was not true, when he knew the report had concerns that outlined concerns around funding for centres for children who are sexually abused. The minister knew that, and he stood up and told us that everything was fine. He put politics in front of children. He made the choice.

C. James: He made the choice to cut back on services for centres like Mary Manning, who had to reduce services and supports for children who are sexually abused.

Do you know what the community did? The community got together. The community made different choices than this government. The community got together and actually funded the half-time counsellor that Mary Manning had to cut because of this government. They pooled their resources because this government wouldn't.

My question again to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will he admit that he was wrong and fund these centres so children who have been sexually abused can get the supports that they need?

Hon. T. Christensen: The opposition can rely on this. The people of British Columbia can rely on this. We will follow through on the recommendations of the review. As that concludes, if it identifies a need for additional funding, then we will work to provide that funding. You can count on this. If we say the funding will be provided, unlike the NDP's mental health plan in the 1990s, we'll actually fund it.

R. Chouhan: It has been six years since the minimum wage was increased in B.C. Since then, the cost of living has gone up. The price of housing, ferries and gas has gone up and is still going up. The list goes on and on. The majority of British Columbians are in favour of increasing the minimum wage.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. When will the government do the right thing and give minimum-wage earners the increase now?

Hon. O. Ilich: I find it rather ironic that today, when we're being asked this question, I got up this morning and saw in my newspaper that it said B.C. wages are expected to grow faster than average. One of the other papers just said "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The fact is that in the last six years, we have created 370,000 jobs. At $8 an hour, the minimum wage in B.C. is still currently the highest of any province in Canada.

R. Chouhan: This Premier has given himself a 54-percent wage increase and nothing for the workers. What a shameful performance that was. This minister….

R. Chouhan: Blowing hot air is not going to hide the fact. The minister is not even answering my question. Six years and no increase in the minimum wage is not acceptable, no matter how you cut it. In six years there's been no increase in the minimum wage.

In her definition of a good economy — what she was trying to describe — a quarter of a million people are left out, who are working at $10 or less an hour, and 120,000 are working for $8 or less an hour. It is unfair, it is unjust, and it's an issue of quality of life.

Even at the UBCM convention an overwhelming majority of the delegates at UBCM supported the notion to increase the minimum wage. Why is it so hard for this government to help workers and increase the minimum wage?

Hon. O. Ilich: Just to inform the members opposite, the average hourly wage right now is $21.73. That's two and a half times the minimum wage, and it's up over 21 percent from 2001.

J. Kwan: The minister is missing the point. A quarter of a million people in British Columbia are making less than $10 an hour. Two-thirds of the minimum-wage earners are women. A minimum-wage…

J. Kwan: …single mom makes $15,613 per year after taxes. That's well below the poverty line. At that wage — after the cost of basic necessities like market rent of $844 and child care costs, at the low end, of $450 a month — she is left with $85 for food for the rest of the year. She has to go to the food bank and beg for food.

My question to the Minister of Children and Family Development: does he think this is appropriate? And if not, will he stand up and tell the Premier that it is time to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour?

Hon. O. Ilich: I have a list of things that we have done here for low-income earners.

Right now 250,000 people pay no provincial income tax whatsoever. Lower-income people have seen reductions of up to 70 percent. Individuals earning less than $20,000 per year receive a 100-percent subsidy now on their MSP. There are things we have been doing for people in the economy that they were not able to do because the economy was so bad when they were in charge.

J. Kwan: Let me tell you. The list of things that this Liberal government has done has landed British Columbia with the distinction of having the lowest child poverty rate across the country, under this government's watch — of actually having the highest poverty rate across Canada. So maybe the minister….

J. Kwan: Maybe the government members and the government ministers are proud of that record, but British Columbians, I can tell you, want to ensure that when the economy is doing well, everyone benefits. It is time for this government to do the right thing.

Will the minister tell the Premier to raise the minimum wage? The Premier did not hesitate at all to give himself a $54,000 pay increase this year.

Hon. O. Ilich: You know, in the last six years we have seen the largest increase in disposable income in two decades. We have the lowest unemployment rate in three decades. We have the strongest growth and job creation record in decades. When that government was in power, people were leaving.

Hon. O. Ilich: When that group over there were in power, people were leaving the province to get jobs in other provinces because there were no jobs in this province.

S. Simpson: Earlier this year we heard in the energy plan that there would be no surface discharge of produced water from coalbed gas, that it would be reinjected below aquifers. However, we've now had it confirmed by ministry officials that Storm Cat Energy in the Elk Valley are being grandfathered from that clause, not just for their existing test wells but for future wells — including the seven that they have planned for next year and, potentially, for the hundreds of others they could end up with on their 30,000-hectare site.

This will flow thousands upon thousands of litres of surface water into the Elk River, jeopardizing the future of the river and the fishery. This makes a mockery of the commitments in the energy plan.

Will the minister either admit today that the reinjection policy for surface water means nothing or tell Storm Cat Energy and other companies that all wells drilled from today on will have to adhere to that policy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to answer the question. That's exactly what the energy plan says. All wells drilled from now on have to actually reinject the water well below the aquifer. I'm not sure whether the member actually read that or misspoke himself, but whatever. It is accurate. That's what happens.

Let's go back in history a bit. At least half the coalbed gas wells that were drilled in British Columbia were drilled when the NDP were in government. Can you imagine? When they were in government, they didn't tell a soul what they were doing. They didn't tell anybody about coalbed gas or water. They just went in and drilled them. In fact…

Hon. R. Neufeld: …the wells the member is speaking of were drilled during the 1990s and allowed to actually put their water out. Now, today, we're supposed to go back to the 1990s and cancel something.

The member is right. When the energy plan came out, they had to actually reinject it. They're the toughest standards in North America, and we stand behind those.

S. Simpson: Well, as is usually the case, the minister has no clue what he's talking about. On October 30 the question was put: will any existing wells be grandfathered? Will any new wells on existing tenures be required to reinject?

The answer from Ellen Frisch, the executive director of marketing and community relations for this ministry, was: "The answer does mean that the existing permits and the projects have been grandfathered, including all future wells."

The reality is that you're going to allow it there, and you're probably going to allow it in the Comox Valley and in the north. Will the minister stand up and tell us

what you're doing? Will the minister stand up and, for once, tell British Columbians that this energy plan is a sham?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I can tell the member clearly that people in North America, jurisdictions even as far away as Europe, have asked for our energy plan from the province of British Columbia.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker. What is a sham is when individuals such as that one — who doesn't have a clue about a conventional gas well, a conventional oil well, tar sands or coalbed gas — stand up and try to talk intelligently about it. He should actually figure it out first.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member should actually read the plan again, take a look at it and see clearly what….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Listen up a little bit, you know. Just listen up. You might learn something.

We have the best standards and the best record for the development of coalbed gas in the province of British Columbia, bar none.

B. Simpson: Taking a question on notice in question period is not supposed to be a mechanism for the minister to avoid answering the question. Taking a question on notice in question period is a mechanism for the minister to be able to give an informed answer within a reasonable period of time, with reasonableness being defined according to the complexity of the question.

A week ago today I asked a very simple, straightforward, yes-or-no question to the Minister of Finance, which the House Leader took on notice for the Minister of Forests.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member clearly has not checked back in the record of proceedings in this House, or if he did, he must have stopped around 2001. There is a longstanding practice in this House that questions may be taken on notice, as was done, and members will consider those questions. There are a variety of mechanisms by which the matter can be pursued.

The member was on his feet yesterday, as I recall, in this chamber. I think he was posing questions to the hon. Minister of Forests. If he wished to pursue the matter…. If he was dissatisfied with the schedule, then he could have pursued the matter. You know, in this….

Hon. M. de Jong: In these proceedings over the last couple of weeks, we have been confronted by circumstances where members…. The Leader of the Opposition has stood up outside of the chamber and made allegations that were patently false inside the chamber, and she has refused…

Hon. M. de Jong: …of regard for the decorum and the rules of this House demonstrated by members opposite.

Members, we've deteriorated something drastically. If we look at what happened yesterday…. We started out good today. We look at what's happening today. Let's go back to where we were to make the decorum of this House something that British Columbians can be proud of.

M. Farnworth: On the point of order, I was going to ask the Speaker to rule on the point of order after discussion with the Clerks.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, 4,557 signatures from British Columbians at the special B.C. Fed's Now petition events that took place in the Premier's riding of Vancouver–Point Grey.

M. Farnworth: I have a petition of 2,910 signatures from British Columbians gathered by the B.C. Fed and other community groups at the Mission Folk Festival, wanting an increase in the minimum wage.

R. Austin: I'd like to present a petition of 3,112 signatures collected by the B.C. Fed, seeking a $10 minimum wage, collected all over northern British Columbia including at the Labour Day picnic in Kitimat, the Prince George Cougars hockey game and small businesses in the Queen Charlottes.

D. MacKay: I have a petition here signed by 450 people from Bulkley Valley asking that the government rescind the regulations requiring farm-gate sales be rescinded.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to submit a petition today comprising over 11,700 residents of the broad area that Capilano College serves, who are asking that Capilano College be recognized as Capilano regional university.

D. Routley: I present a petition signed by 3,113 people on Vancouver Island, which seeks an increase in the minimum wage.

H. Lali: I'd like to present a petition of 3,834 signatures from British Columbians collected at special B.C. Fed $10 Now petitions, including a monster truck rally, a farmers' market, a Sum 41 concert, Thompson Rivers University students, as well as constituents from throughout the interior. That would include the Thompson, Okanagan and Cariboo regions of this province.

R. Chouhan: I have a petition of 4,065 signatures from British Columbians at special B.C. Fed $10 Now petition events, including more than 1,500 gathered in the rain, sleet and lightning at the White Stripes concert, a roots and blues festival, and Simon Fraser University students as well as constituents in Burnaby.

R. Fleming: I would like to present almost 2,000 signatures — 1,959 to be exact — from a variety of community colleges in several regions of the province of British Columbia urging the government to raise the minimum wage to $10.

B. Ralston: I'd like to present a petition with 5,078 signatures gathered in Surrey at various locations, including SkyTrain stations, Sikh temples, SFU Surrey, various Surrey high schools and, as well, from constituents in Delta and Richmond.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to present a petition with 2,889 signatures from British Columbians. They are the special B.C. Fed $10 Now petitions. This includes petitions from the SkyTrain stations, the Pacific National Exhibition, and a Vancouver Giants hockey game as well as constituents in Vancouver-Hastings.

K. Conroy: I, too, have a petition, with almost over a thousand signatures from events throughout the Kootenays, done by the B.C. Fed as well as by people throughout the Kootenays, including at the Shambhala Music Festival, where many young people signed the petition.

J. Kwan: I have a petition with 6,045 signatures from British Columbians asking for the B.C. government to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. These signatures were collected from the two B.C. Lions games, the Pride Parade and the Robson Street petition canvass. They represent constituents from all over Vancouver.

With all the petitions that are tabled today, that is a grand total of over 45,000 petitions calling on the government to raise the minimum wage.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; S. Hammell in the chair.

R. Austin: I'd just like to continue on from yesterday's discussion. I'd like to begin by stating something very clearly and recapping from some of the answers that we got from the minister yesterday.

I want to be clear that on this side of the House we recognize the right of the Tsawwassen First Nation to have engaged in an agreement and to have negotiated an agreement that gives them a portion of the commercial fishery. I think that that is completely appropriate for a first nations band which historically derived its income, its livelihood, from the ocean. So not only do we agree on this side of the House that the Tsawwassen First Nation has a constitutional right to a ceremonial and food fishery, but we also think it

appropriate that they would have negotiated to partake in the commercial fishery.

My concern, which I expressed to the minister yesterday…. Unlike the previous treaty that we have in this province, the Nisga'a treaty…. Because of the nature of the Fraser River and it being such a vast river and there being so many first nations occupying and hoping to derive benefit from the Fraser River, our concern is that, of course, this treaty will be seen as a bit of a blueprint. Whichever way people look to see what the value of that commercial fishery is — and we haven't really come to any specific number as to what it is economically, in terms of both dollar value and fish — it could create problems later on as we look to other first nations treaties. That's why I brought that line of questioning up.

My understanding, in speaking to the minister, is that on the advice of fishery experts, they believe that the model used here is sustainable and that as other nations come to the table to negotiate their own treaties, they will also have the ability to negotiate rights and access to the commercial portion of the Fraser River, sockeye in particular.

I'd just like to ask a few more questions. Can the minister tell me what process will be used to amend the harvest agreements?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you for the question. I have been referred, and will refer the hon. member, to the "Harvest agreement," in particular sections 50 through 53, which lay out the mechanics by which a party can indicate their desire to amend the agreement and, roughly, the process that would be followed to do so.

R. Austin: Looking at items 71 and 72, I see that there is the ability for the federal government, for DFO, not to attend joint fisheries committee meetings in matters that pertain to the province. Likewise, the province doesn't have to attend meetings of the joint fisheries committee in matters that pertain to DFO.

My question to the minister is: in a fishery as complex as this where, for example, the salmon start their lives in the tributaries in the land portion of British Columbia but spend the majority of their lifespan out in the oceans, why was it necessary to create a joint fisheries committee where the three parties don't have to be together? How do you manage this fishery properly if all three parties aren't at the table to discuss issues that go back and forth between the two jurisdictions?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't interpret the section the way the member does. I think that in many instances the meetings will be tripartite, will involve all three parties. I think what the sections try to convey is that if there are situations or issues that arise which engage specifically two of the parties, it is not mandatory that the third be there.

I don't think, in fairness, that the sections contemplate a situation where two of the parties run off and envisage doing things on their own, because in many, if not most, instances — I think the member is right — the fishery is a complex matter that will engage all three parties. I think what was sought out here was a mechanism by which the parties could meet, and in circumstances where it was felt that all three weren't engaged or necessary, that could happen as well.

R. Austin: I recognize that in the next couple of questions I have, there is nobody here from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But I am wondering whether the minister could at least take these questions and then bring the answers back.

The reason I'm asking these questions is that we want to try and figure out and quantify what this fishery is worth in this agreement, so I'm going to ask a few questions here and hope that we can get the information at a later date.

I'd like to begin by asking: on an annual basis, during the last ten years, what percentage of Fraser River sockeye has been harvested by first nations groups, firstly, for the use of aboriginal food, social and ceremonial purposes; secondly, in separate commercial fisheries; and thirdly, through first nations who own or operate vessels in the public commercial fishery already?

The next question is: again, on an annual basis, during the last ten years, with respect to the application to the Tsawwassen benchmark for sockeye salmon to other aboriginal groups with claims to the Fraser River sockeye, how many first nations persons have claims to Fraser River sockeye? Secondly, if the Tsawwassen benchmark is granted to all these persons, how many sockeye would have been available for the public recreational and commercial fisheries?

My third question is: again, on an annual basis, during the last ten years, with respect to the application of the Tsawwassen benchmark for sockeye salmon to other first nation groups with claims to Fraser River sockeye, how many first nations persons in the lower Fraser River, downriver from Sawmill Creek, have claims to Fraser sockeye? Secondly, if the Tsawwassen benchmark is granted to all these persons, how many sockeye would have been available for the public recreational and commercial fisheries?

I'm hoping that we can get some answers to that, obviously not today, but at a later date.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think a couple of those questions may have been put in a different form to the federal minister, and we may actually have access to the response. I don't have it now at my fingertips. We may be able to provide some of the information.

The middle question — the member doesn't have to repeat it; I'll go back to the Hansard and confirm the specifics of the question — may be a little more challenging to obtain, but we'll see what we've got and see what we can get.

For the DFO officers who are employed by the federal government and for employees of companies hired to monitor the public commercial fishery — those officials have to maintain a very high standard of independence. Can the minister state whether the same standards of independence will be maintained in the Tsawwassen commercial fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: That would be our expectation, and we are proceeding on that basis. The member is correct. It is a job that requires a formal detachment and is at times a very difficult job. But that independence, as it is in any situation like this, becomes very important.

I am reminded that there are sections 92 and 93 in the agreement that deal with the issue of enforcement, but I agree with the member that independence in the exercise of those duties is a keystone to them being performed properly.

R. Austin: I believe there are a few more members who want to ask fisheries questions, so I'm going to, at this point, cede the floor to the member for Peace River South.

B. Lekstrom: A question under chapter 9, section 15. It reads: "The Tsawwassen Fishing Right may be exercised by those individuals who are designated by Tsawwassen First Nation to harvest Fish and Aquatic Plants." Could the minister tell me: is this strictly for Tsawwassen First Nation members, or could they designate this right to any individual?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to do this in parts; otherwise, I'm going to confuse the issue and myself and the member all at the same time.

Pursuant to sections 15 and 16, insofar as harvesting what are called the treaty fish, the Tsawwassen First Nation has the ability to designate individuals or vessels. For example, in the case of an elder, they have the ability to designate a vessel or another person to catch that defined allocation. I think the member probably has questions that flow from that, and I'll try to answer them.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you to the minister. Hopefully, the minister will bear with me here. I'm going to interpret that as the issue…. If I was designated, I would have the right to go and harvest those fish. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: The specific answer is: only in certain circumstances, only ceremonial food fish and only where the actual number of fish is specified.

B. Lekstrom: Okay. I guess, then, the right to be exercised could be given to an individual such as me or anyone else. I understand that. I would tie that in now with section 17, where it says: "Neither Canada nor British Columbia will require an individual, designated by Tsawwassen First Nation, to have a licence for the harvesting of Fish and Aquatic Plants under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right."

Where I'm going with this — and I think the minister probably can follow my logic, hopefully — is that if I'm designated as a non–Tsawwassen member but designated by the Tsawwassen government, then I wouldn't need a fishing licence to fish within their fishing area, which is laid out on appendix E, on page 330?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to refer the member to section 57 of the chapter, because I think what we're asking about is: how does an individual in the position that the member has described demonstrate the authority under which he or she is fishing? Sections 57 and 58 speak to the question of the necessary documentation for a designated individual.

B. Lekstrom: Following through, I've definitely gone into section 57. Just so that I'm clear, and this is really for clarification for myself and the people, certainly, that have asked questions of me. If I read the document under section 15, I interpret that as — and certainly, under certain circumstances, I understand what the minister's said — a person other than a Tsawwassen First Nation member could be designated.

If that person is designated under section 15, section 17 would apply. That person would not need a licence even if they were a non–Tsawwassen member, and that's what I'm looking for. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I follow the essence of the question and through the sections. So pursuant to sections 15, 16, 17 and then the documentation sections that we referred to a moment ago, I think the correct answer is…. A designated individual, in the example that we have been pursuing…. The authority that individual derives for being in the boat fishing comes from the documentation sections 57 through 58 and not from the issuance of a conventional-type licence.

So it would be the documentation under section 57 that provides them with the authority to be in the boat fishing and not a conventional licence, and that speaks to 17 and 18.

B. Lekstrom: I thank the minister for that. I think it has cleared it up that the ability to designate is not just for a Tsawwassen member; it would be at their discretion who they would allow that right.

Under that, certainly understanding 57 and the rest of the document, they would not need a fishing licence as we know it today, if I was to walk into a sporting goods store and purchase my fishing licence.

Would that mean that if I wasn't designated under the Tsawwassen fishing right but fished within the fishing territory that we're talking about on page 330 of the appendices, I would need a fishing licence?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understood the question correctly in this example, the individual is not a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation, has not been designated pursuant to the chapter or the sections we referred to and is fishing within the area identified by the appendix and by the member. In those circum-

B. Lekstrom: One more question under chapter 9, and it goes to the "New emerging commercial fisheries," sections 106 and 107. The process described here if the minister proposes to establish a new and emerging commercial fishery within the designated areas that are laid out there…. Does this section guarantee a portion of that commercial fishery under a new emerging portion….? Is there a guarantee to the TFN, or Tsawwassen First Nation, that they will receive a portion of that new commercial fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: No — no guarantee. There is an obligation enunciated in the section to consult with the Tsawwassen First Nation about possible participation, on terms that would be determined — but not a guarantee.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions on the salmon aspect of it, the Fraser. I'll try to sort of group them together in order that maybe you can roll them up real quick.

I wanted to know the number of first nations that have actual fishing licences in the province — in B.C. as a total — and if there's a percentage. Are they separate from the rest of the fisheries that have been allocated to the Tsawwassen, or will that be rolled into theirs? From what I understand, there are a great number of fishing licences out there that are first nations.

If I'm reading this right, and you look at appendix J, there are going to be two fisheries — one covering the Burrard Inlet, the commercial fishery, and then the general fisheries up the Fraser.

I wanted to know basically how many…. When you look at appendix J, the territory appears to go right across Burrard Inlet and out as far as Sechelt. There didn't seem to be a cutoff going up the Fraser. So how many first nations or bands…? There may be a crossover in the Burrard fisheries and subsequently up the Fraser.

On that premise, then, have they had any sort of side agreement as to what allocation each band is going to get, or is that already in the allocation that is in under the harvest agreement, number 11?

Am I thoroughly confusing you with my questions? Would you rather have me ask them one at a time? What I'm trying to get at is: how many aboriginal licences are there out there in the commercial fisheries now, and what percentage is that of the entire B.C. fishing licence thing? How many, if you know, are Tsawwassen — members of the Tsawwassen band?

Is that number of licences that are already out there in the commercial field with the Tsawwassen included in what was allocated under number 11 in the harvest agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has an interest, not dissimilar from what the member previously spoke to, about how these allocations will fit into the overall framework of the fishery and the relationship between an aboriginal fishery, ceremonial food fishery, commercial allocation and the overall fishery.

As I've indicated to the member previously, we think we have some detailed data. I'm not in a position where I could relate that to this committee at the moment, and it's probably best conveyed on paper. I will endeavour to provide the member with that information, as I did a few minutes earlier.

D. Jarvis: I will try to ask another question — again together, but maybe I should ask them separate. Who knows?

With regards to the allocation, my concern was the allocation of fish. If there is an overlap with other aboriginal bands, are there agreements or side agreements as to how much the other bands may get?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. The first thing I want to emphasize to the member is — as with any of the other provisions of this agreement, including the fishery — that giving effect to these terms cannot in any way adversely impact the aboriginal rights of other first nations, including rights that they will have to ceremonial food fish — the fishery generally. That's the first thing.

There are actually provisions in the agreement that provide the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with an ability to examine the set entitlements within this document in situations where — because of a poor salmon run — meeting those allocations would, in their view, adversely impact on the rights of other first nations.

Respecting the fact that there are other aboriginal peoples, first nations, who are historic participants in the fishery — respecting the fact that they too have rights under the constitution of Canada — is a principle that the negotiators to this agreement have tried to take account of and have actually enshrined within the document.

D. Jarvis: I am concerned about how the allocation by the federal government is going to be for all the bands up and down the river — and across the Burrard Inlet, if there's a crossover.

The federal government has now stopped the fish count. They contend it's too expensive. How are we going to get into the actual allocation if there's not a count?

If everyone is fishing and there are no counts and they really don't have any controls on it, we'll lose that fishery eventually.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has again emphasized some of the challenges associated with the fishery — a fishery that's been under pressure and that efforts are being made to revive. I'm not a fisher or a biologist. My impression is that fish counts are far from an exacting science.

First of all, I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a constitutional responsibility to manage aspects of the fishery. Anecdotally, I can tell the member that where I live I actually saw a different

method of engaging in a fish count. Again, I'm a layperson, so my opinion on this probably isn't worth a great deal. It was the employment of an aboriginal fish wheel — actually, two of them — at the Mission gate in Mission. I first saw the fish wheels on the Nass River in the Nass Valley, with the Nisga'a. It strikes me as a remarkably sensible way to check stocks, to check their condition without doing damage.

The member is correct. Our ability to allocate is tied to our ability to reliably know the size of the resource, the size of the run, and that will continue to be a challenge. I am, I'm afraid, ill-equipped beyond that to offer any pearls of wisdom or secret solutions as to how we can do that better in the future. But I do know that the pressure will remain, and that the need to safeguard and improve those runs and returns will also remain.

D. Jarvis: I haven't got my hands on it as to the number of first nations groups that will be fishing the Fraser and Burrard where the northern and the southern runs and the west coast of Vancouver Island runs come through. If there is a crossover and if the Tsawwassen band is sort of guaranteed approximately 5 percent, all those other numbers — and I think there are 20- or 30-plus of them…. If you don't know the numbers of the fish coming in, when the spawn comes, it will be fished out if it is wrong.

Is it in the agreement somewhere that they have to abide by, say, the federal government as to when to stop fishing? Is it all based on the allocation? The numbers vary as you go through the season. They will vary. So all of a sudden they say: "Well, we're short six million salmon — sockeye, chum or whatever it may be — coming up." Has the federal government got the right to stop the fishing completely?

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought the member would have derived some comfort from sections 2 and 3 of the chapter in the agreement, which ensure that all these allocations are subject first and foremost to conservation.

H. Lali: I just want to continue on from yesterday where we left off in terms of how it would affect the Lytton First Nation, for instance, for the fish allocation under the sockeye salmon allocation. I was just using that as an example, rather than getting into some of the details of chum, pinks, chinook, coho and others.

I basically want to use that as a base — whereas the Tsawwassen, with roughly between 300 and 400 individuals in membership, have an allocation of 1 percent if the catch is under 500,000. Then it goes up by almost another half a percent if it's between 500,000 and three million. If it's beyond three million, then there's a total of 15,226 in terms of sockeye salmon.

I also want to read into the record…. I have no intention of going through band by band or anything like that, because I have, as mentioned yesterday, the largest number of aboriginal first nations bands in my constituency — a total of 29.

Two of them are on the Similkameen, the Upper and Lower Similkameen bands. But the other 27 are all on the Fraser River system. I just want to read for the record the names of all of these bands in there. I hope the minister will bear with me.

There's the Peters band. There are the Shxw'ow'hamel; Skawahlook; Chawathil; Union Bar; Yale; Spuzzum; Boston Bar; Boothroyd; Kanaka Bar; Siska; Skuppah; Lytton; Cook's Ferry; T'it'q'et; Cayoose Creek; Seaton Lake; Bridge River; Fountain; Ts'kw'aylaxw, which is the Pavilion band; Nicomen; Shackan; Nooaitch; Lower Nicola; Upper Nicola; and Coldwater Indian bands. That's 27 that are on the Fraser system.

Obviously, there will be challenges in terms of the allocation of fish. I'm wondering, just to follow up on the question yesterday: has any thought been given by the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — or by the negotiators in the Treaty Commission on the government's behalf — as to what it would do in terms of allocation to aboriginal bands and on the pressure there would be on the total allowable catch that is allotted for the first nations fishery? Has somebody actually sat down and done some sort of calculations or estimates of when the actual fish run out as treaties are being consummated upriver from the Tsawwassen itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member has made the point about the pressures that are placed on the Fraser watershed ecosystem. In fact, not only is this a matter that has been uppermost in the minds of the negotiators, but the issue that the member refers to, deriving from the model or the possible application of this or a similar model, is very much on the front burner, as it were.

I think one of the first nations that the member mentioned was the Yale First Nation. I think that was in his list of 27. They have an agreement-in-principle. We are hopeful that that will mature into a final agreement. The negotiators are certainly working to that effect.

Fisheries is a big part of that. Insofar as we are dealing today with a final agreement involving the Tsawwassen, largely at the mouth of the Fraser River and Georgia Strait, we are in the midst of discussions, negotiations with a first nation much further upriver where a lot of the same questions and same considerations will be at play.

So everyone is alive to that fact and cognizant of the need to, primarily, preserve conservation as the number one priority. But also recognize that we're talking about sharing a finite resource, and we have to commit to agreements that will allow that to happen in a fair, equitable and constitutional way.

H. Lali: I was wondering if the minister could elucidate for me what, in terms of the allowable catch right now…. I know it's dependent on how many fish return every year, but there is an allowable amount of catch every year that is determined by the province and the feds. You have the commercial fishery, the aboriginal fishery and the sport and recreation fishery there. I was wondering if the minister could elucidate

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is asking for overall catch numbers. I don't have them. They certainly change from season to season. I think, in fact, they are on the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans website. So I can check there, or the member can check there, or I can try to bring them. I don't have the data for the overall fishery with me.

H. Lali: I can appreciate that. There must be some idea that staff would have as to roughly what is allotted out of that. The total allowed as a percentage of the total fish that come back — there's a certain percentage that is allowed. Let's say that represents, on a scale of 100 percent…. A certain percentage is allotted to each one of those three categories. Staff must have some idea as to how much, out of that 100 percent, is allotted to the aboriginal fishery, what percentage is allotted to commercial and what percentage is allotted to sport and recreation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not meaning to be troublesome about this. I mentioned to the member's colleague that we'd try and obtain some accurate information.

For example, the allowable sockeye catch in '07 was zero. So that's a number I can give pretty much off the top of my head.

I'm really leery in this chamber, in this committee, to speculate about numbers when I know there is an authoritative answer, but I'm not able to give it. If I give the wrong one, there are going to be a lot of people watching, and they're first going to become concerned. That's going to lead to all sorts of difficulties.

We'll try to get the information, and I understand the relevance that the member is pointing out. But as I say, I should clarify that the commercial allocation for sockeye in '07 was zero. The numbers fluctuate, and I'll try to get the best data we can, but I really don't want to speculate and average and get it wrong, or there will be all kinds of concerns that flow from that.

H. Lali: I know the minister understands what it is I'm trying to get at. With 27 individual, independent first nations in my constituency, obviously they're keeping a close eye, because each one of them has historically depended on the fish coming upriver to sustain them for centuries and centuries before that.

If you look at the formula that has been used so far in consummating the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty and if that were to be followed, then obviously there won't be enough fish for everybody on the Fraser River system. That much is certain. My chiefs and councils in my constituency are quite cognizant of that and are keeping a close eye on that and are very interested, if this is used as a template, as to what will happen when it comes their turn to consummate treaties.

I understand the information about the percentage is not available. But we do know there is a certain amount that is allotted to each one of the three categories of sport, commercial or aboriginal fisheries. We know that much.

Now, as treaties are being consummated and signed by all parties, what happens if, let's say, X amount is allocated to aboriginal fishery historically? If you look at the records of the last 20 or 30 years in terms of the fishery that has taken place, it is easy enough from the historical records for the government, through the negotiators, to derive what becomes an average percentage. Let's give that percentage a value of X.

A number of treaties in the next five, ten or 15 years get finished off, consummated. All of a sudden X is all used up, and you still have 15, 20, 30 or 40 more treaties left to go on the Fraser system — thus involving a number of the bands in my constituency who still haven't consummated treaties. If only a portion of the treaties on the Fraser River system are consummated, you still have a large portion that are left and the average historical allocation of aboriginal fish with a value of X is all used up and allotted towards treaty-making, what happens to the sport and the commercial fishery then?

Does the government then intend to negotiate treaties that would encroach upon those historical quotas that are allotted to the sport fishery and the commercial fishery in this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think my answer will closely parallel what I articulated earlier to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. If the member goes to sections 1, 2 and 3 of the chapter, he will, I hope, derive some comfort from the fact that all of this is subject first and foremost to the principles of conservation. That is, it is that principle that I hope provides him with some comfort that we won't find ourselves in the type of position he has described.

Secondly, insofar as either constitutionally based entitlements or any kind of commercial allocation, the principle of conservation takes precedence. In the case of constitutional-based entitlements, there is obviously an override built around the principle of conservation and the principle that the treaty cannot adversely impact on the constitutional rights of other first nations.

Insofar as the commercial allocation and the model around which the harvest agreement is built, the information we have and are relying upon — and I acknowledge that we are relying upon this information, having asked the same question that I think the member has asked — is that this represents a sustainable approach. We are commending this document to the House and to British Columbia on the strength of that information, which is that this represents a sustainable model that respects rights, respects balance and is a reasonable and sustainable model going forward.

H. Lali: I appreciate the effort by the minister in providing a fairly lengthy answer, and I also appreciate him pointing out sections 1, 2 and 3 in chapter 9.

I'm not actually talking about conservation now. That's a separate issue. Later on I probably will talk about conservation and how we achieve that goal, but that's not what my question is about. It's not about conservation.

I'm talking about the aboriginal fishery, and I don't want the minister to misconstrue somehow that I'm against aboriginal fishery. As a matter of fact, I have been on record inside this House — previously in the 1990s, as part of the Nisga'a treaty — as well as outside of the House, in statements that I've made in my communities with the media present, that aboriginal people have a constitutional right to fish and have had that historically. So that's not the issue.

The issue I'm saying is in terms of fairness for all aboriginal people. In this case it's the Fraser River we're talking about. A little bit more close to home, I'm talking about the interests of my constituents — the 27 first nations that are on the Fraser River system. Again, we want to look at this in the future. Many people will believe that, based on this particular model, it most likely will not be sustainable in terms of all aboriginal peoples on the Fraser River system getting their fair share of the fish if a certain amount of treaties are already consummated and that aboriginal portion, whatever it has been historically, has been used up.

It's a very important point, and the minister hasn't answered my question. If we get into a situation where only about half — or whatever the number is — of the treaties on the Fraser River are consummated and still half to go and if that historical average allocation of aboriginal fish is used up, what happens in that case?

Does everything that has been consummated with first nations before that get reviewed, or do we, as a province, and the feds actually encroach upon the historical average allocation of commercial and sports in order to make up the difference, which you can't do otherwise? It's a fairly straightforward question. What will happen in that case?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this helps the member, and forgive me if my earlier answers didn't address the point as specifically as the member sought.

There is, obviously, a priority that has existed. I'm not an expert, by any means, around the management of the salmon fishery on the west coast of Canada and British Columbia, but it does start, firstly, with the principle of conservation. There are then constitutional entitlements, largely to aboriginal peoples, that are met.

After that, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes decisions around the management of — I suppose you could say — what's left, and makes allocation decisions. It is frequently based on what I have seen can be a fairly acrimonious discussion amongst the various stakeholders around how those allocation decisions are made.

I think the feature about this, the commercial component to this, the commercial harvesting agreement…. The point that I have tried to emphasize when asked about it is that it is not a separate entitlement. It is part of the overall fishery and would be managed as such.

Now, what I candidly cannot predict or prognosticate upon for the member is what decision the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans might make in any year going forward. In fairness, I think the member is maybe not talking so much about next year but maybe ten, 15 or 20 years down the road. I cannot say with certainty, after having dealt with the conservation and with constitutional entitlements, what the decision would be around the allocation as between the commercial fishery and the sport fishery.

I'm not in a position to predict how that might be resolved in the out-years by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. My experience tells me that it will continue to be a fairly intense discussion amongst the stakeholders, all of whom, of course, are interested in acquiring as large a share as possible.

I don't know if that helps the member. I hope it does a little bit, but that's maybe the best I can do at this point.

H. Lali: Reading between the lines in the minister's answer, no detailed thought has actually been given at this present time, in terms of the consummation of this treaty…. When such problems as we have been discussing here arise in the future, how are they going to be dealt with? I don't think there's anybody in this House or anybody in the sports, the commercial or the aboriginal fishery who agrees that we should not conserve. I mean, conservation is everybody's goal.

We know that the DFO, given their best science and projections and historical evidence that they've had, will come up with a number for the total allowable catch for all three fisheries that will be based on the science and on all of those goals that we have for conservation. Obviously, the number will not increase and jeopardize conservation in order to fulfil the constitutional right of aboriginal people who, in the future, will not have had their treaties consummated yet but the aboriginal historical average of allocation has been used up. There seems to be this area that hasn't really been discussed in any kind of detail.

That leads me to this question, then. The total catch number will not increase, given that we have conservation as the number one goal in mind. The aboriginal fishery gets used up by a certain portion of treaties already being signed, and there's a large number still left to be signed. Where does the allocation of the constitutional right to fish by aboriginals…? Where does the allocation then come from — if the aboriginal portion or the historical average is already used up — if it doesn't come from the sports or commercial fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: I fear that I am failing miserably to provide the member with the comfort and assurance that he has required. I think I disagree somewhat with the remarks he made just a moment ago prefacing his question. There actually is some material out there that may provide the member with a measure of the

The Pearse-McRae report, which is a document I believe he is familiar with, addressed the very questions that the member is referring to. It did so, I believe, with specific reference to sockeye salmon. It was published a couple of years ago and is there, and it addresses the very issue of sustainability.

I refer the member to it because it is something that we, too, have relied upon in deciding that this is a model we can confidently move forward with and embrace as being reasonable and fair. Maybe that helps. The member may want to obtain — or I can obtain it for him — a copy of the Pearse-McRae report entitled Treaties and Transition: Towards a Sustainable Fishery on Canada's Pacific Coast.

H. Lali: I don't know if the minister is to blame for the failure to be able to provide an answer. Maybe I might be failing in terms of being clear enough to be able to ask that question.

Having said that, I want to go back to appendix J-2. There are percentages in terms of the allocation under the Tsawwassen treaty in there.

If we have pressures of not enough fish to go around for all aboriginal people, as per their constitutional right, and if a certain historical average of what the aboriginal people have been used to fishing over the last decades is used up, then that leads me to the question: are these numbers here in the Tsawwassen treaty then reviewable? And subsequently, any other treaties that are consummated after the Tsawwassen but before all treaties on the Fraser have been consummated — would these numbers then be reviewable so that all aboriginal people, all first nations on the Fraser River system, are getting their fair share of the constitutional right to fish?

Hon. M. de Jong: Can the member just help me? Is he referring to the allocations referred to in the commercial harvest agreement or to the treaty allocations contained within the final agreement itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay. I was just looking at appendix J-2, where some of those allocations are set out, starting with the sockeye allocation.

I think the reality is that there is a formula set out there. Again, going back to the Pearse-McRae report, it's one that we are told is sustainable, looking forward to and recognizing the obligation that exists to the first nations that the member has referred to and to other first nations beyond the ones, the 27, that he has listed.

In good years the first nations will share in that bounty. In bad years…. In a year where fewer than 500,000 sockeye salmon return, there ain't going to be a lot of fish. That is going to visit upon everyone, including the Tsawwassen.

The obligation that the member has properly pointed out here vis-à-vis other aboriginal peoples, other first nations, continues to exist. This appendix, this chapter and this agreement cannot be used as an excuse for not honouring that constitutional obligation.

I do understand also that if it's a really bad year with some 500,000 fish, everybody's going to really suffer in all three categories: aboriginal, sports and commercial fisheries. Everybody obviously will be taking their corresponding share of the reduction in terms of what fish they are allowed to catch.

There is still this overarching issue. I'm not going to ask another question on that. Rather, there is an uncertainty as to whether, based on this formula here, there will be enough fish for all aboriginal people upstream in the Fraser River when their turn comes for treaty-making. That is a concern.

There is also a concern among sports fishers and commercial fishers in my constituency and in my travels. They're worried about their fair share, in terms of being able to catch in the future, if the formulas are so out of whack that even aboriginal first nations, as they consummate treaties, may not be able to have their constitutional right fulfilled as well. I just wanted to have that on the record.

On the issue of overages and underages, it's stated…. I don't know which section it is here. I seem to have temporarily lost what section it is, but I'll just go from memory. It's there in writing, as part of the treaty, that if, for instance, the Tsawwassen First Nation goes over their allotted quota, there would be readjustment in future years in terms of their catch.

I was wondering if the minister would be able to tell me how far one can go in terms of when that readjustment would take place. Is it one year, two, five or ten years?

Hon. M. de Jong: Specifically, the answer lies within the fisheries operational guidelines. Our best recollection, and we're checking as we speak, is that the overages and underages have to be reconciled and fall within the allocation every five years.

H. Lali: What happens in a case where the overage repeats itself a couple, three or maybe four years in a row? Is there some sort of mechanism in place to make sure that doesn't happen, or is there some sort of a penalty or anything attached to it? What happens in that case, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the kind of scenario the member has presented, ultimately there would be a day of reckoning or a season of reckoning, and that's why the reconciliation is important.

I should say this, though. With the level of intense scrutiny and involvement, the joint fisheries management, the fisheries guideline and drawing on the experience of the Nisga'a treaty….

I was up there a couple of months ago. They have done — and I understand the Nass River is a different kettle of fish, pardon the pun, than the Fraser — remarkable things and, in fact, recently were awarded recognition for the manner in which the fishery is being managed and have enjoyed some success in terms of improving the stock.

In general, and I don't want to put too fine a point on it, the limited experience we have in the province suggests that where these instruments have been agreed upon, where there is that formal buy-in between the parties, it has had a positive impact. It has reduced the uncertainty to a limited extent and has actually shown some improvement.

Again, the Fraser River is a far different place than the Nass Valley, so time will tell. But I think there is reason to be optimistic or hopeful that a similar phenomenon will play itself out as we work with people and groups and first nations through the watershed.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister. I'll just leave my place for my colleagues to follow up.

G. Gentner: As we begin this discussion on the fisheries, I have to preface it by telling the minister that all my life has been within about a mile or so from the Fraser River.

The Fraser River is life all-encompassing. It brings the sediment down the river through to the mouth. It has created Richmond; it has created Delta. Of course, it is the most prolific salmon-bearing river in North America, and there is some dispute whether or not the world. It may have been.

I have to pose many questions, not only relative to the allotment of fish and how it's going to affect other bands but also a major interest to the province, and that is the fishing industry itself. Many families have been impacted by the way we've destroyed, as a society and as an economy, this important resource.

To start off, I wanted it clear for the record that we understand how vital and what this highway has meant to the first peoples — not only the Tsawwassen but the Cowichan, the Nanaimo, the Penelakut, the Chemainus, the Katzie, particularly those around the Stó:lô, the Kwantlen, the Semiahmoo, the Lummi and many others. Of course, the Musqueam. Excuse me for missing some of the important bands; they're all important.

Just for the record, I have to encapsulate exactly what this particular area…. We talked yesterday, hon. Chair, about the Sand Heads and Brunswick Point. Here is a quick overlay of what it means to the other first nation peoples who fish there.

This is a document that goes back almost to the turn of the century. It's about Abraham when he was fishing on the Fraser River with his grandfather, who worked as a fisherman. He was with the Cowichan. His grandfather met Johnny Point, who explained the relationship of the Cowichan people to the land at the mouth of the south arm and, of course, with the Tsawwassen.

I bring that to your attention, hon. Chair, because the Fraser River was fished by many bands, a multitude of bands, and they shared cultural exchanges — marriages, language, same dialect. We are going through allocation of fish for one band. We are going to see a huge claim — a huge claim — and rightfully so, with the template that's being produced through this treaty, of future claims….

The exploitation of the first nation peoples — there was a book written by Rolf Knight that encapsulated it quite well. There was actually, at the turn of the century, an edict from the school board superintendent in Delta that ensured that the first nation children, particularly those from Tsawwassen, would not work in the canneries when school came. That ensured that, particularly between the time when the coho ran in September and October, they were kept out of school in order for the canneries to exist.

It was child labour, and the distinguished gentleman who was able to get it done for his cannery was Tom Ladner — whose name, of course, was the name of the village. It became a multitude of areas for people to live today. So the exploitation happened, but still to this day…. Those canneries were strung from Tom Ladner's cannery at the Sand Heads all the way up to where my community today is in North Delta. A huge amount of canneries, probably the largest amount of canneries in the history of the province, exists in Delta.

The point is that we know there's a huge number of first nation peoples working in those canneries and camping along those canneries, but not all, of course, were from the Tsawwassen. I have to bring that into

the context of the conversation to fully understand what we are doing here today.

I suppose my first question would be something in the order that…. With negotiations with the province, the federal government and, of course, the Tsawwassen First Nation, one of the advising arms to the province was the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, made up primarily of the GVRD. They had a whole host of principles that they brought forward. Principle 23 stated: "The protection of fish stocks is a primary concern, and the rights and responsibilities of all fishers engaged in native, commercial or recreational fishing should be given due consideration."

So I need it for the record from the minister whether, in his mind, all the responsibilities and concerns of not only the native fishers but the commercial and recreation fishing industry had their concerns voiced through this process as outlined through the lower mainland treaty advisory committee.

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe the negotiations and the final agreement that emerge from them are reflective of those principles.

G. Gentner: Did the ministry or the process include discussions with the Fisheries Survival Coalition?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the committee that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials were engaged with a variety of stakeholders in the fishing sector. Our best recollection is that they did specifically meet with the group that the member mentioned.

G. Gentner: Well, I'm somewhat pleased to hear that. I don't know what exactly that involved. Communications could mean anything from a phone call….

I know the minister isn't there necessarily to defend what the federal government did, but I know the minister and his government are very much concerned about the commercial industry and how it affects local economies.

When these negotiations began — it's quite lengthy, I know…. Did the provincial government not have an idea what the value of the commercial fishery is in dollars and cents, and what the impact will be after further completed allocations of salmon with other first nations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I understand the question. The value of what fishery? What component of the fishery? Whose fishery? As the member knows, it's a fairly complicated sector. So I may need to know more before I can answer accurately.

G. Gentner: Well, it's a matter of: did the government conduct an assessment of the value of the fishery? Also, it's a multiplying effect for British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Not to be troublesome again, but what fishery is it? The fishery as reflected in these documents, the overall fishery, a particular allocation, the constitutional allocation, the commercial allocation?

G. Gentner: I'm referring to the allocation and the formula that's been set out. My understanding…. The harvest agreements, of course, suggested otherwise over the years. Primarily to that of the salmon industry. I'm not talking about trout. I'm not talking about halibut. I'm just talking specifically about salmon.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe this will help. Insofar as the chapter we are dealing with and the allocations that are provided for in accordance with constitutional entitlements, I think the member knows that some calculations were done around ten-year averages. So it is possible within the context of that averaging process to establish particular numbers of fish, although that can vary in particularly bad years and can go up slightly in better years.

It's possible then to extrapolate, depending on what the market price of salmon is. As I indicated to the member's colleague, I can try and relay some of that information to the member from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's certainly out there, and it was certainly examined and certainly known. So that kind of data does exist.

My understanding is that the averaging works out to about 12,000 sockeye a year — somewhere thereabouts. So if that's the bar that's going to be set and when you multiply it by the amount of future treaty settlements, the ministry must have some idea of what it's going to mean and its impact on the run. And it also must know what the impact is going to be on the commercial fishery.

Did the minister or the government conduct an assessment of the impact of this loss of fish to the commercial industry and/or how it could affect the sport fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I think he was here when we canvassed essentially the same issue with the member for Yale-Lillooet and would have, I hope, heard me talk about the assurances that we sought from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is the agency charged primarily with responsibility in this area.

We did seek assurances from them around the question of sustainability based on certain assumptions relating to future negotiations and also the analysis conducted by Messrs. Pearse and McRae. I don't know Mr. McRae, but I certainly know Mr. Pearse, and theirs was an extensive study that the member may have heard me commend to his colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet.

G. Gentner: Well, if we know there are about 68 Indian bands on the Fraser River or within the Fraser basin, if my math has it correct, we're looking at — what? — 800,000 salmon?

Hon. M. de Jong: We all have to be cautious and remember the principle that is enshrined within the

provisions of sections 1 through 3. That is the notion of priority being given to conservation and, secondly, the notion that the allocations, such as they are, and any provisions in these treaties cannot adversely impact on the constitutional rights of others. It is, I think, dangerous to simply extrapolate in the manner that the member has suggested.

I do think, though, that the question is an appropriate one and was very much at the heart of the study conducted by Pearse and McRae, where they considered very much that central question and issue — the sustainability of the model that was being proposed going forward and recognizing the desire that existed and continues to exist to negotiate additional agreements with other first nations.

G. Gentner: Well, I don't necessarily completely disagree with the minister here. I mean, the adverse impact or how it's defined by others is always to the federal government…. Sort of on the record, I think it's a shame that while the….

Excuse me for spending just a few seconds to go off topic here, hon. Chair, but quickly…. We know that Quebec has decided to constitutionally get control of its immigration policy. I dearly wish that the province could have control of its fishery industry, because if we had to make the decision on what is adversely impacting the fishery, I think our decision would be quite a bit different than what's coming out of Ottawa.

I want to ask the minister…. The management of the fishery. What I'm trying to ascertain through chapter 9 is: under the Supreme Court of Canada 1996 decision, including Regina v. Nikal and Regina v. Marshall, is there an aboriginal right to manage the fishery under that decision?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm no longer in the business of rendering legal advice or interpretations of Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

G. Gentner: I find that amusing, because this minister, during Nisga'a, did launch a suit with the help of others. I find it strange that you're no longer involved in the aspects of the legal profession. My understanding is that, according to the court decision, there is no aboriginal right to manage the fishery, and you're surrounded by people who certainly know that. Can you confirm that?

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there is a decision here that has happened in the last couple of months, which I'm not aware of.

G. Gentner: Again, I'm simply asking the minister: according to that decision, would he confer that there is no aboriginal right to manage the fishery?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will say again that the purpose of this committee is to analyze the provisions of a final agreement — in this case, chapter 9. I am happy to do so with the member to the best of my ability. If he and I would like to go and have a cup of tea and digest and discuss the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada some years ago, I'm happy to do that as well.

G. Gentner: Nothing would please me more than to have a spot of tea in the legislative dining room, particularly with the member opposite. I would look forward to that one day. I know there's a special legislative blend now that we can enjoy here in Victoria.

We're talking about allocation of fish, but it brings to mind what the responsibility of first nation peoples is in the conservation of the fishery. I'm trying to ascertain how that is playing out within chapter 9. Is there a responsibility here with conservation relative to, for example, fish enhancements? There are fish enhancement programs throughout the region, up the Fraser River. I just want to know, in the case of the Tsawwassen, what their duties are relative to enhancement of the fishery.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the member that the parties did turn their mind to that fact. He will know that the chapter includes provisions that lead to the creation of the joint fisheries committee and that within those provisions, between paragraphs 68 and 78, there is reference to that joint fisheries committee. Specific references are made to enhancement initiatives and stewardship activities to be conducted by the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Lastly — and I think the member was present when I made this reference — is the experience we have seen unfold in the Nass Valley where, in that case, the Nisga'a have played a leading role that has been recognized by many officials. We're hopeful and optimistic that through instruments like this and agreements like this, we'll see a similar phenomenon take place here.

It appears again in section 94. The Tsawwassen First Nation "may conduct Enhancement Initiatives and Stewardship Activities…." There is specific reference, I think, to just the kind of sustainability initiatives that the member is alluding to.

G. Gentner: I am somewhat concerned, though, about the level of self-enforcement in the Tsawwassen fishery. This is a problem that is well proven by a situation…. For example, Mike Baird was convicted of illegally selling food fish yet maintained his position as Tsawwassen fishery manager, I believe.

What I want to know here is how we are going to show the stewardship and the management of the fishery from within. The B.C. fishing industry's major concern, I believe, is that we could be developing a single commercial fishery under two sets of rules. Would the minister like to comment on that, or does he believe it's going to remain under one set of rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've heard the same thing as the member, and I'll respond to it on the record here.

It is one of the features of this that the provincial government is supportive of — the commercial allocation in the harvest agreement. First of all, it is in an agreement separate from the final agreement itself. Secondly, that commercial allocation is managed as part of the overall fishery.

I'm going to extend an invitation to the member in as congenial a way as I can. He has raised a good point. I have heard some of those concerns, and I am genuinely interested. I won't ask him to speak on behalf of his colleagues, but there is a model being proposed here, and the majority of the opposition has indicated its support for the treaty.

The member has obviously taken time to familiarize himself with this during the course of this debate. He's under no obligation. He doesn't have to tell me what he thinks, but I'm going to ask. What does he think? How does he feel about the model?

The fact that this commercial allocation exists in an agreement separate from the treaty and is managed as part of the overall fishery is, I think, a positive feature. I am curious to know what other members who have participated in this debate think. I'm not going to pester the member. If he doesn't want to answer, I'm not going to ask him again. But I am genuinely curious to know whether he sees it as a workable model.

G. Gentner: I'll soon respond. I agree with the critic. Our critic made mention of it.

In general, we agree that there's going to have to be some reconciliation and some movement towards finalizing a component of the fisheries whereby the first nations are recognized and have a reasonable means of allotment of fish to continue not only their traditional means. But there are a lot of first nations fishers who have been around for a long, long time, and they're good fishers.

I have to respond. I'm seeing a fishing community slowly dying on the vine. Gunderson Slough is one. I've got Dannyville, which used to be a huge fishing area along Delta all the way to Sunbury. That's pretty much gone as well.

As the minister knows, anytime you get a can of tuna, it may say it's processed in Canada, but it was probably caught in Canada and canned in Taiwan or Thailand. The whole industry has changed, so I'm concerned about keeping a viable fishery together.

I'm just asking some, I think, reasonable questions. Are we going to try and keep a single commercial fishery here, or are we going to have two separate rules? I think the minister is suggesting that there will be two separate rules. I can live with that, provided there is some fairness so that all people, including the commercial fishers, have a way….

I'm a fisher too. I'm a sport fisher, and I basically catch and release. It's good fun, and I want to ensure that it's managed well.

Again, my concern is that when it comes to the oceans, it's the purview of the federal government. That's a long, long way away. I don't necessarily believe that those living in Ottawa have a vested interest in looking after the Pacific salmon industry.

I'm going to ask just a few more questions, and I think we're going to be done with this chapter. I'm interested in the enforcement. I read this enforcement and how it's going to work, but the monitoring is to be conducted, in part, by the federal government. I'm just wondering: why is it that there's no independent party involved with this enforcement and monitoring?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer, for better or for worse, is that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the agency constitutionally charged with responsibility for the administration and management of the fishery. I think that's the answer.

Just one other thing. I appreciated the member's remarks a moment ago. I'm not sure, however, what I said that conveyed to the member my belief that on the commercial side we were creating two separate fisheries or two separate rules. I meant to convey just the opposite.

It was the feature of this that indicated there would be the commercial allocation included in the harvest agreement, which would be managed as part of the overall fishery, that I thought was a positive feature. I perhaps did that clumsily, but I did not mean to convey what I thought I heard the member say he heard.

G. Gentner: I'm not going to belabour the point. We've had a history of misinterpretation of allocation — who gets what, how and why — and the enforcement of that allocation, particularly along the river. This has been happening for some time.

Perhaps the minister is onto something. Perhaps this will help us establish a quota and be maintained and sustained.

I want to move quickly to the view of bivalves and crabs and shrimps. I see that some people think an oyster is a bivalve. My understanding is that it isn't. It's neither here nor there.

After the certain time has expired and the first nation can engage in these types of fisheries, could the minister explain to me how we are going to wrestle with any of the current or grandfathered oyster leases that could be claimed by parties who have an interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I give a long-winded response that is wholly off topic, is the member asking about how we would reconcile whatever entitlements might exist within the chapter and the agreement with existing tenures in a particular area? Is that the essence of the question?

G. Gentner: Well, let's take Boundary Bay, for example. B.C. Packers for years had oyster leases. It was the most prolific oyster industry in the province at one time. Of course, it died with the pollution coming

down from, with due respect, your neck of the woods — Langley; not quite up at Abbotsford, hon. Minister — and it created a problem.

I've talked to Fisheries and Oceans about this. They've told me, believe it or not, that through designs beyond our own means, I guess, DDT from farming and all the rest of it have all changed and, in fact, that the Boundary Bay area could, very much, one day soon be eligible for a return of oyster farming — not only the Pacific oyster but also the Blue Points that were introduced there in 1904.

There were substantial oyster leases in Boundary Bay, and I'm wondering: will the first nation have access to those leases, or are they still active today? I'm just wanting to know if the ministry had delved into that research.

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the best information I have at the moment. The shellfish-related rights that are provided for in this agreement extend to particular areas — the islands on the other side of the Strait of Georgia. In the Boundary Bay area there are no rights provided for, for the reason the member mentioned: at present it's not deemed a suitable area. That may change; let's hope he's correct.

If it does, I am advised that the Tsawwassen First Nation would have to make application for tenure through the regular processes. I can't advise the member, and I don't have at my disposal, whether any of the historic tenures that he has referred to remain in effect today.

G. Gentner: I'm happy that that's been clarified somewhat, though I'm dubious. According to what I've read, I think there is a claim by the Tsawwassen First Nation to — if or when — come forward with an oyster farm lease, according to this legislation.

I just have a few quick questions on the allocation. Steer me through what the allocation of chinook salmon is. I haven't seen that in the agreement. I have seen the sockeye; I have seen the spring. I may have missed it. I've heard a rumour that on average, it's 625 fish a year.

Chinook are a huge, beautiful salmon, and I just wanted to know what the average harvest purpose will be — your average.

Hon. M. de Jong: Based on the applicable calculation, taking into account returns between 1982 and 2004 — and I'm referencing what exists in appendix J-2 and applying the relevant formula — the prediction is that the Tsawwassen allocation would be in the neighbourhood of 625 fish. I think that's set out specifically in J-2.

G. Gentner: With that, I have many more questions, but noting that this is somewhat of a federal concern — I'm sure that in the House of Commons a colleague of all of ours from Delta, Mr. Cummins, will be raising this to the ire of his Prime Minister — I have no further questions at this time.

S. Fraser: We're through on this side with chapter 9, and we're prepared to move on to chapter 10.

S. Simpson: I have a few questions in relation to chapter 10, which deals with the issue of wildlife. I'm going to try to run through them in the order that they appear in the chapter, and we'll see how well we do with that.

The first question I have relates to article 6 on page 74. The article references that: "British Columbia may authorize uses of or Dispose of provincial Crown land, including Provincial Parks and Protected Areas, and any authorized use or Disposition."

My question to the minister is: is there some contemplation of that, or is that just here to cover off some legal requirements?

Hon. M. de Jong: The sections are a general provision. To answer the first part of the member's question, nothing specific is being contemplated. It is a bit of a complicated section, so I'm going to provide some additional information, and then we can move through that and get clarification where it's required.

Their inclusion is also a reflection of the urban nature of the treaty. That's the backdrop against which I think we have to read these sections. These sections — 6, 7 and 10, in particular — establish conclusively in the document that B.C. can make land use decisions on provincial Crown land without having to ensure that the Tsawwassen First Nation has a reasonable opportunity to harvest wildlife. So that's also a feature — wildlife being a feature of the chapter that we're on in the agreement.

In general, the province has to consult with first nations when we make land use decisions that have an impact on treaty rights. With the urban location and the limited opportunity to harvest wildlife, there's a slightly different approach in this treaty. In paragraph 10 — I'll refer specifically to that — it's clarified that the parties agree that British Columbia doesn't have an obligation to consult with the Tsawwassen First Nation where authorized uses or dispositions of Crown land may affect the Tsawwassen right to harvest wildlife.

However, I also need to point out to the member that the "Provincial Parks and Gathering" chapter, which we haven't yet come to but will come to, confirms that consultation will be required — "consultation" being a defined term in this agreement — regarding changes to parklands, protected areas or wildlife management areas that would affect this right. Therein lies the significant piece.

Why don't I stop there, and then that may give rise to some additional questions from the member.

S. Simpson: I think I'm starting to figure out what the minister said. It is a little complicated.

On this land, the land that gets referenced…. I acknowledge that, you know, the government has quite a bit of breadth under section 10. I do note — when we get to 34 and 35, which also get referenced there — that when allocations are dealt with, there is a pretty clear process to determine allocation.

Getting back to the question of ownership on the land for a minute, as referenced in 6. This doesn't

contemplate…. I'm thinking particularly of provincial parks — not general Crown land, but the parks and protected areas. In terms of this general section, there's no way here to trigger that land having its uses changed through a sale. It says here that they could be disposed of by the Crown.

If the Crown was to choose to do that, that land which falls within the Tsawwassen lands, presumably, would become Tsawwassen land — that land which currently sits within the boundaries of the Tsawwassen lands. Would that be the case, and how would that happen? Or would the government be able to do something else with it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll offer this, and it may help both of us, but I wanted to check on the accuracy of what I'm about to say. To use the example that the member has — in this case, of parkland…. In the event that a government or the Crown were interested in disposing of such land, nothing in these provisions facilitates that or allows that to happen separately from the usual processes that are involved in such a decision.

Nor, however, is there anything in these provisions that represents an absolute impediment to such a disposition occurring. It does, however, in the clause that the member has pointed to, impose an obligation on the Crown in that type of situation, if they wish to advance that, to consult with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

S. Simpson: I think that helps. I wasn't anticipating that the province was going to go out and sell a park next week.

But with that land now…. It goes on to talk about it affecting the methods, times or locations of harvest there. So it's anticipated here, and maybe we'll get to this further. I'll start now, because these are all linked. Here we go, the first questions, and we're already off the following-in-order process.

The question of a wildlife harvest plan. What's anticipated, generally, in terms of the harvest rights within the parkland that falls within the Tsawwassen lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: This won't be a complete answer, I suspect, to the member's question. But as he is waiting for that, I am consulting sections 39 and 40 of this chapter in the agreement, which refer specifically to the wildlife harvest plan, which is a defined term in the agreement. Then, in 41, the contents of that wildlife harvest plan are spelled out. That provides the reader with an indication of the substantive provisions of what would be included in a wildlife harvest plan.

I think the member's question probably related to other things about how such a plan comes into being, but maybe he can help me with that, and I'll try to provide other information to him.

S. Simpson: I do have those questions, and they certainly arise. If I look through this at section 6 and then at section 7, I guess the question I have at this point is: are there any special parameters around the fact that we're dealing with provincial parkland here in part of the territory, the land? There's parkland engaged here. Are there any special conditions around that parkland falling within the Tsawwassen lands that the province anticipates — or things that are different than what we would allow to happen in provincial parkland generally?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question, which is, basically: what is different here? Well, we can start with one difference, and that is the one identified by the member constitutionally and now in a way that is defined in more detail in this agreement.

As aboriginal people, members of the Tsawwassen First Nation will enjoy an opportunity to do certain things within the boundaries of a provincial park that are unique to them. I am thinking about the gathering of plants.

I checked with the staff. I think a lot of the speakers in second reading talked about the historic tie to the hunting of ducks and waterfowl. They would enjoy that ability. It is, however, limited — and I'm now looking at section 2 — by "measures necessary for conservation, public health or public safety." So it is not an unrestrained ability, but it is unique. It is a unique right that derives from a constitutional entitlement that is now defined within the features of this.

Maybe that helps. I mean, that is different. That is different than what would exist for others who are not members of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

S. Simpson: I think I get that. Those things that are different…. The minister identified, possibly, things like duck hunting, some gathering of plants or some other cultural activities that may be unique and that we wouldn't necessarily allow people to do in a provincial park. But clearly, the Tsawwassen are now entitled to a certain other set of rights, based on the terms of this agreement, to be able to do this.

S. Simpson: Within their area — absolutely. Are there other things on that list? What does that list look like? What they are entitled to? Do we know that, or is it still open for negotiation or discussion?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. I think, in canvassing birds, plants, and wildlife…. Broadly speaking, those are the three areas. The point that I wanted to be certain of before I related it to the member is that one of the features of this document, this final agreement, that I think is very important is that those rights that would exist for the Tsawwassen First Nation within the setting we've been describing are those which are specifically enumerated within these pages.

It is part of the objective of the document so that you can refer back and say: "Now, is that something…?" Well, it is, if it is something that is provided

for and has been agreed upon within this document. I think that's an accurate statement in the context of what we're discussing.

S. Simpson: I'll move to another question that relates a little bit to that, but we'll get off the issue of specifics here.

In the case of these provincial parklands that are in the treaty lands themselves, there is also a significant amount of park and protected area that surrounds that. There is some crossover, but there is a fair amount of park or protected area that is outside of the actual treaty lands. The treaty lands cut across that, if I see it properly by the maps in the schedule.

What is the circumstance for a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation who exercises those additional rights within the lands when they walk 50 yards down the way and walk outside those lands — still within that park or protected area — where they had the ability to engage in the duck-hunting or the plant-gathering, whatever that may be?

Is there any consideration for what happens in the rest of that park or protected area that is contiguous to and surrounds the lands but is not necessarily inside the lands? How does that get dealt with or monitored?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to get a more detailed answer in a moment. I want to clarify the question. I think our terminology in these detailed areas is important. The first one I don't think turns on this. The member can have his own preference, but I prefer to talk about "unique" rights as opposed to "additional," so he'll hear me use that term, I hope.

The member's reference to the parkland within the treaty lands. I think what we're talking about extends beyond the treaty settlement lands and into what is called the Tsawwassen territory. So there are those two terms. There are the 700 hectares, which are the treaty settlement lands, and then there is the larger area. I think the member is asking me about the larger area, about what is defined as the Tsawwassen territory, which contains part of Golden Ears Park.

The member is nodding. I think that is what he was referring to: the larger area that is defined as the Tsawwassen territory.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify, when I go into the continued schedules — I guess it's appendix K-1, which is the map of the Tsawwassen wildlife harvest area — it clearly identifies an area that is outlined here as to the territory and that. We'll note that there are significant areas of those parks that fall outside of that area.

I'm trying to determine here…. We have what is called the wildlife harvest area as identified on the map. Then there is an area outside that which is parkland or protected areas. I'm wondering what happens when you walk down the road or walk half a kilometre down the way, and you're on that land.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a better understanding of the question and am advised that those unique rights are within the boundaries set out on the map. The member is correct. That means there are parts of that provincial park within which those unique rights and entitlements as defined here do not extend. It will be important for people to know where they are.

Now, section 19 is also relevant in a general way — not so much within a park, of course. Nothing in this agreement precludes a Tsawwassen First Nation member from acquiring other licences and rights that are available. They generally don't apply within a park, but they certainly apply elsewhere in the country.

S. Simpson: I'll move on to section 9, on page 74. Article 9 talks about: "In compensation for the limited existing opportunity to harvest Wildlife and the likely future diminution or loss of any meaningful opportunity to harvest…." This section lays out a compensation payment valued in 2006 at $50,000. Is this an annual compensation payment, or is it a one-time payment?

S. Simpson: Is there any thought or consideration, as this issue comes forward, about diminution of wildlife, availability of wildlife and the challenges that that all faces? I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, Ministry of Environment and others are always looking at ways to deal with those reductions in wildlife and to bring back stocks and to do that kind of thing where it's possible to do that.

Is there an expectation about the government playing a role with Tsawwassen to try to bring back those wildlife stocks? Would that be a role the government would play, or would that be Tsawwassen's responsibility?

Hon. M. de Jong: Certainly, by virtue of sections 50 and 51, there is going to be involvement with the Tsawwassen. In the example the member offered, I'm not sure purely from a capacity point of view how realistic it is to expect the Tsawwassen to unilaterally go out and begin a reharvesting of wildlife program. I do know that there is interest in working together, and that is captured through 50 and 51.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister. I wouldn't anticipate the Tsawwassen to have the capacity to go and take that on, on their own, and I would hope that the provincial government would see a fairly proactive role, working in cooperation with the Tsawwassen to accomplish that, if it's a doable thing.

How would that work in terms of that? Maybe we'll talk about that a little when we come to wildlife planning and the sense of their participation in that. I'll let that go for the moment.

Going just to article 14, which relates to Burns Bog and the Burns Bog conservation area. It talks here about the TFN exercising their "Right to Harvest Wildlife within Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area if

harvesting of Wildlife is permitted on the lands, and any such harvesting will be in accordance with Federal and Provincial Law, and Local Government bylaws."

What is the status right now? It says: "…if harvesting of Wildlife is permitted on the lands…." What's the status today?

Hon. M. de Jong: Presently, I am advised, the status is clear. There is no hunting permitted within the Burns Bog ecological conservancy area. Nothing in this agreement would provide the Tsawwassen First Nation members with an exemption from those provisions, from that prohibition. If, however, those circumstances were to change, the section would operate to provide the Tsawwassen members with an ability to exercise their Tsawwassen right to harvest wildlife within those provisions — if that circumstance changed, and right now it has not.

S. Simpson: To follow up on that a little bit, I know this is a different chapter, but just to clarify that there is an allowance under plant-gathering for plant-gathering to occur within the Burns Bog area. That's correct — not hunting, but plant-gathering. Is that an allowable use, which is somewhat different?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, there is a distinction between wildlife and plant-gathering. In the provincial portion of the bog, that right would exist. I should say — and just a tip of the hat to Delta — that there are some extensive efforts going on to rehabilitate the bog, and they have been working cooperatively with the province and the Tsawwassen to identify appropriate areas where that plant-gathering can take place. That seems to be, at this point, a good-news story.

S. Simpson: It's a good distinction. I appreciate that distinction. But to be clear here, currently, as the minister says, there's no allowance or allowing today of any kind of harvesting of wildlife in any way, shape or form within the bog. As long as that continues to be federal, provincial or local law, then the Tsawwassen will be treated like everybody else in regard to that and have no unique rights over and above that.

S. Simpson: Section 16 says: "Neither Canada nor British Columbia will require a Tsawwassen Member to have a licence or to pay a fee or royalty for harvesting Wildlife under the Tsawwassen Right to Harvest Wildlife." Is that the case only in terms of the Tsawwassen lands, or is that a right to not pay that fee that extends outside the lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that once a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation leaves the traditional territory, which equates with the wildlife harvest area as defined in this agreement, the obligation exists to obtain the usual licensing.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move ahead here to article 22 on page 76. It says: "Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of: a. the management of Wildlife habitat on Tsawwassen lands; b. the sale of Wildlife.…" Then it also talks in 23 about the federal or provincial laws prevailing.

In terms of making laws for wildlife, we have wildlife that potentially migrates back and forth on and off of the Tsawwassen lands, obviously. That's what occurs within these larger areas, the park areas and that. How does that work in terms of there potentially being laws that are different in terms of the management of wildlife within the lands versus, for example, in those surrounding parklands or areas?

Does it create a problem for there being inconsistency between the on- and off-treaty lands when you're talking about the animals or wildlife that are moving back and forth? Does that create a problem? Do we envision any difficulty with that?

Hon. M. de Jong: The law-making authority that is provided for here for the Tsawwassen First Nation only applies to the treaty settlement lands, that 700-some-odd hectares. The complication that might arise, as the member described it, from sort of a patchwork of regulations therefore isn't likely to occur. It would have that law-making authority on the 700-some-odd hectares of treaty settlement lands that represent the core of the treaty.

There are some rights that they have relating to documentation for members — to manage and organize members who seek to go get wildlife — but I think the essence of the member's question related to where that wildlife management authority begins and ends. The law-making authority relates to the treaty settlement lands, that 700-some-odd hectares of land.

S. Simpson: Then in the wildlife harvest area, which is not necessarily totally encompassed there, what happens there in terms of the ability to manage that land? Where does the management of that land sit in terms of wildlife? How does that work? What's the process for the government and the Tsawwassen to work through that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the important distinction here is the fact that members of the Tsawwassen First Nation in that larger wildlife area have certain rights, but Tsawwassen First Nation government does not enjoy law-making authority. Pursuant to section 15 of the chapter, that is retained by the minister, which he or she must exercise in a manner that is consistent with this agreement. There are some advisory provisions that are designed to ensure some partnership work with the involvement with the Tsawwassen.

It's an important distinction in terms of the difference between the rights that flow and the law-making authority — which, as one can see by section 15, is reserved to the minister.

S. Simpson: How that works in terms of that process — is that the negotiation around what that

looks like or changes around that? Am I to assume that comes in discussion around the harvest plan, or the allocation and the wildlife planning? Is it coming in the harvest plan? Is that where any discussion around those kinds of issues comes up, or in the allocation? How do the Tsawwassen First Nation and the government have this discussion?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is correct. I've also been reminded of section 8 in the agreement, which provides some specific incentive or opportunity. Essentially, the member is correct in referencing what he has.

S. Simpson: We'll talk about that a little bit later when we talk about the harvest plan. Can the minister tell me…? When we talked about documentation in 24, and I'm sure this probably comes back to 20 as well, it talks about the TFN "will issue documentation to identify individuals who are authorized" by the TFN to harvest, under the right to harvest. Is the TFN limited to providing that authorization or documentation to members of the band, or can they go outside of that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised, hon. Chair, that it is, in this case, restricted to members of the Tsawwassen First Nation. There's no delegation provided for outside of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

S. Simpson: Just moving, then, to 27 through 29, the designated wildlife species. It says that the minister determines that in order to address the conservation risk to wildlife within the harvest area, there should be a total allowable harvest established, etc.

What is the process that the government and the minister go through? Since this is now almost a government-to-government relationship around the harvest area, what's the process this has gone through to make that determination about that designation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The technical answer to the question is found in sections 30 to 38, but I think the member's question related, as well, to: practically, how does this happen? I think we are fortunate in that we have the benefit now of some years of experience under the Nisga'a model, where they've had to make similar decisions.

My expectation, going beyond what's on the pages before us, is that a similar approach would be followed. As the member said, this is another example of an ongoing relationship that will involve discussion and interaction, government to government. That has been the experience with the Nisga'a. My expectation is that something similar will follow here.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the notion of using the Nisga'a as a template or a model for trying to model this after. I suspect, though, the situation is a bit different with the urban treaty.

In the case of the Nisga'a, I'm assuming that when the government and the Nisga'a government sat down and had this discussion, they were pretty much talking about the vast majority of all the people in the region represented by the Nisga'a government, and British Columbia was represented by the government. That's an easier discussion to have.

In this case in an urban area, obviously this discussion potentially involves a whole lot of other people who are not TFN. We know that there's been some experience that when government-to-government discussions go on, they go on at a level that doesn't necessarily allow other legitimate interests or stakeholders to be part of that discussion all the time.

The question for me becomes: as that practical process of discussion goes on, then how are others — whether it be local governments, community interests, others who have an interest around these questions of wildlife species — going to be part of that discussion when it is a government-to-government discussion?

Hon. M. de Jong: Three things come to mind, two that flow from the document itself. Sections 34, 50 and 51 all speak specifically to the opportunity for other parties to be involved and participate in some of the matters relevant to this and for the minister to seek out information from those sources.

Then the third thing. I know that the member quite properly highlighted some of the obvious differences between where the Tsawwassen reside and where the Nisga'a do, in the Nass Valley. I suspect, however, that insofar as wildlife harvesting numbers, there is probably as much interest in that part of the province by non–first nations who are active in the hunting realm.

I agree. It is a vastly different circumstance. But the interest from third parties probably exists in both places, and the agreement, happily, makes provision for taking account of that interest and allows for that participation.

S. Simpson: When I look at section 34, the minister makes reference that that provides an opportunity. Could the minister tell me…? I don't see in section 34 where….

It talks some about what the levels of harvest by individuals who are not Tsawwassen members might be in designating allocation. But I don't see in there, necessarily, where other broader interests have an opportunity to actually be engaged in this discussion, other than people who might hold licences to do some hunting.

S. Simpson: I wasn't sure whether the minister had caught the last question, so I'll kind of repeat it as best I

can remember. In relation to sections 27 through 29, we had been discussing the differences between….

The minister had talked about the Nisga'a agreement and how that government-to-government relationship might work there and it being a bit of a template for what might happen with Tsawwassen in terms of government to government. This is particularly in regards to the engagement of other folks who have a particular interest. I think the minister had referenced section 34, where it does talk about harvest by individuals who are not Tsawwassen members as one of the considerations for allocation.

My question here is…. Setting aside people who might be out looking to harvest, obviously in the lower mainland area there are a lot of people who have an interest in the future of wildlife and environmental concerns and related conservation concerns.

How do they engage in this discussion, since we know that discussions that are government to government often have people on the sidelines? How do you get those people into that discussion in a way that they'll be satisfied they were fairly consulted?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I think it's true that there are people who are interested in those matters, and there are avenues by which the ministry seeks their involvement and input and their avenues. I should say, however, that this document very much focuses on the relationship between the three parties. I don't want to suggest that if we look long and hard enough, we will find specific reference to that. This is very much a document that guides the relationship amongst the three parties.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I wouldn't expect the document to vary very far from needing to tie down the agreement as it reflects to the three levels of government. I don't think that takes away from the question.

I know that the minister knows full well that the need for meaningful consultation with first nations is important, and the need for meaningful consultation with others in the community, whether they be local councils, stakeholder groups, wilderness organizations, parks conservation organizations, other community organizations or other interests. There needs to be a way to ensure their part of the discussion.

Their relationship would be primarily, I assume, with the provincial government, as the provincial government represents them outside of the Tsawwassen Nation. How, then, does the government see ensuring that those groups have a meaningful place in this discussion as the government? I don't think it's the obligation, necessarily, of Tsawwassen to make that happen, but it is the obligation of the government to make it happen, so how does it work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member seized upon it. The provincial government is the bridge. Insofar as there are processes in place now that engage people in that exercise, that will continue. The provincial government will also now — moving forward, post–effective date — be guided by the discussion and will share with those participants the nature of the input and will have to factor into decisions that are made the input from a variety of sources.

This is a new source. This is a new dialogue, a new discussion, that will take place, which in no way diminishes the importance or the opportunity that other people have to provide that ongoing input to the appropriate departments of government ministries, as it relates to these matters.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move on. I think that remains a challenging question for the government. I certainly know that in my experience here in discussions with a number of groups who have been involved around some of the discussions…. Particularly, I know that when the work was being done around the Great Bear and the mid- and north coast agreements…. I think everybody was very happy with the work that went on.

But I know there were groups that spoke to me and that, at the point where it came down to the government-to-government discussions between the first nations and the provincial government over some of those key issues around protected areas and parkland and allocations, there were other groups that were not at the table.

There may be very good reasons why they were not at the table, but I know that they felt some anxiety about having been part of a discussion as it went along and then all of a sudden not being part of that discussion anymore and waiting for some decisions to come down between first nations and the province.

That may be a totally appropriate thing to do, but I know it created some anxiety there with those groups. I'm guessing that the same kind of anxieties will possibly get created here, depending how this discussion around allocations and conservation unfolds.

Having said that, I guess I want to move to talk a little bit about sections 30 through 32, the allowable wildlife harvest. How does the government envision those allocations and percentages that will be for the Tsawwassen people and percentages of harvests that will be for non-Tsawwassen folks? How is that going to work? What's the thinking there, from a government perspective — not from a Tsawwassen perspective, which obviously has harvest plans, but from a government perspective? How is that going to work?

Hon. M. de Jong: More questions will flow from this, I'm certain, but we'll start here. I think the sequencing is important.

First, the determination of a designated wildlife species, and I am focusing on that because I think that's what the member's interest relates to. That is a defined term, of course.

We're talking about designated wildlife species. First, there will be a determination around what the total allowable wildlife harvest is. That is a defined term within the agreement, but it's fairly self-explanatory — total allowable harvest of that species.

Then the question of the allocation will occur. It won't be the reverse order. First it will be total allowable, and then the question of allocation under this agreement will take place.

S. Simpson: In the determination of the total allowable harvest, that first step…. I don't necessarily disagree with the sequencing that the minister talks about. In determining that, the determination would usually be, presumably, a government determination. Government officials would make some assessment and determine what that is.

How will that be different since we're dealing with the question of harvest, potentially, on Tsawwassen lands? What's the difference in terms of the relationship and how the Tsawwassen are part of that decision — not just consultation, but part of the decision?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that pursuant to the provisions of the agreement, it is the minister who makes the determination. He or she will make that.

Again, on the terminology, I think I heard the member talk about the Tsawwassen lands. It is actually the wildlife area of the Tsawwassen lands being that much smaller a portion.

S. Simpson: So the minister makes the decision, and that doesn't change. I think it says in here somewhere about the minister consulting. I'm sure it talks in here about the minister consulting. It talks here, when I look through 27 to 29, about the Tsawwassen or British Columbia recommending to the minister certain species be designated, so presumably that falls into the whole question of the allowable harvest.

It also talks about considering recommendations from the Tsawwassen First Nation, so I do assume that the expectation here is that the Tsawwassen Nation is going to have a level of involvement in this decision that would be unique — to use the minister's term about designations and about authorities. It is unique — the level of involvement they're going to make and have in influencing the minister's decision.

Does the minister, in making the decision…? Presumably, the minister makes the decision. What obligations is it expected the minister will have to explain that decision, at least to the Tsawwassen folks, if it's a decision that is different from what they may expect? And there's an arbitration process here. Would this be allowed, or would this be something that would be arbitrable under the process that's laid out in the agreement, if there was a disagreement over this matter?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to clarify with the member. It seems to me that there are three decision points here. One is the question around designating a species. The second is establishing the total allowable wildlife harvest. Then the third is the allocation within that total allowable wildlife harvest. Each of those attracts a slightly different regime.

Is it the latter, the allocation process, that the member wishes me to address? Each one of them has, in terms of the arbitration…. I don't think they're necessarily applicable to all three, so is it the last one? Is it the allocation process that the member wants me to address?

S. Simpson: I think there are two here. There's potential for significant differences over what the allowable harvest may be, because there's obviously a correlation between that and the allocation. So one is whether there is agreement that the overall allowable harvest number, whatever that number is, is big enough, as big as it should be, or whatever.

Then, of course, the second question, once you settle that number — and it's how you settle that number — is: "Okay, now how do we divvy it up?"

Hon. M. de Jong: Dealing with the two stages in the decision chain that we were addressing a moment ago, I won't be able, off the top of my head as we go through this, to point to the various sections, but they're all here in the area that we're dealing with. I am advised, with respect to the determination around the total allowable harvest, that it involves the obtaining of input and the rendering of a decision. There is no reference within the agreement to the arbitration or dispute resolution processes.

That is contrasted, then, with the next stage, where the allocation occurs. In the event of there being a disagreement around that allocation or that divvying up of the pie, as it were, that does provide for reference if there is no meeting of the minds. One of the parties can refer that to the dispute resolution provisions within the agreement.

S. Simpson: To be clear here, they can't arbitrate the total allowable amount; they can arbitrate the allocation. I'll take a nod here, actually.

S. Simpson: I want to move down to section 34, around the allocation — when that allocation and the harvest are being determined. What is the process here for determining…? How is it that we ensure that we get the numbers right around the harvest numbers and things for the different categories, particularly for Tsawwassen members?

When I read up in section 20 under "Power to make laws," the Tsawwassen government clearly has the power to set designations around harvest and distribution of that harvest and such. All of those laws belong to the Tsawwassen people and their government, to set that within the context of the allocation.

What requirements are there here, and where does this fall in the agreement for the recordkeeping and such, to be able to get the numbers right on what the allocations are for these different groups? There isn't a

reporting requirement that I see in this for the Tsawwassen to report to the government on their allocation and stuff. I don't see that. Maybe it's in here, and I just missed it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I understood the question correctly. The allocation process certainly contemplates — and there are provisions here that speak to — the exchange of information and documentation that will necessarily have to pass between the two governments. I'm reminded that, as time goes by, that body of records will establish itself and be helpful. The challenge in the short term, of course, will be in the immediate, post-effective date in the first round. The parties will have to work together to ensure that proper and helpful documentation is transmitted with respect to any designated species that would be captured by these sections.

S. Simpson: That will move me to the last section that I want to ask some questions around, which is the wildlife harvest plan itself. The section around that — page 78. I have a few questions in relation to this.

Maybe the first question, which will help put this in context, is: what's the expectation? There's a fair amount of documentation and detailed information required here as this plan gets set, and every designated species will require a plan or subplan of its own within the broader harvest plan. That's my take on this. As every species is designated it will require its own full plan within the broader umbrella.

What's the expectation here about what support the government is going to need to supply to the TFN to do this? I think this may well fall within that category we talked about when we talked about enhancement of species, in that it may be challenging for the Tsawwassen band to be able to accurately answer all of these questions without some support. What's the expectation around government support to get these plans right, and how's that going to work?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I agree with the member. It's going to be a big job, and this is one chapter in a big agreement. The parties are going to have to work together. Happily, there is an established track record of that. I think the Tsawwassen will and have already begun the process of making some decisions around where they're going to allocate their resources and efforts. Capacity will be an issue. I could talk about fiscal financing agreements, and I could give a long answer about all of that.

I think the reality is that the parties are going to feel their way through this, particularly in the early years, much as Nisga'a did, and try to develop some expertise on both sides and get comfortable working with one another and exchanging information. At the end of the day the strength of this agreement is going to be rooted in the nature of that working relationship that gets established. It's a big job. It is a relatively small community with powerful, effective leadership, but it's going to be a big job for everyone.

S. Simpson: I guess that really brings me to the next question, which is how we deal with what I'll call interim measures, for lack of a better term. I think the minister is right. This is a big job, and it's only one job in a whole lot of work. The Tsawwassen now have a huge challenge in front of them to be able to put all the pieces in place to make this agreement work, and this is one, but it is a complicated one.

The question I have is…. Assuming that is going to take some time, presumably, in the development of these and how they work, the leadership of the Tsawwassen band is going to want to make sure they're satisfied all the way along, particularly on the first set of plans, because they're going to kind of set some of the ground rules for what follows. They're going to want to be careful.

Presuming that this is going to take a pretty significant piece of time to get it right and to do it, what happens in the interim in terms of the rights of the Tsawwassen people under this agreement where harvest plans aren't in place? They're going to want to be able to access wildlife, access other things. How do they do that? Under what terms or conditions does that happen?

Hon. M. de Jong: Without, of course, detracting from something that I think we agreed on a moment ago, which is that this is going to be a big job, there is one thing we should be aware of. That is that we don't suddenly hit effective date, hit it cold and then say: "Oh, my goodness, all this work needs to be done."

Hon. M. de Jong: If the federal legislation proceeds this fall, or prior to Christmas, I'm advised that the likelihood is that the parties would then set an effective date for the agreement, which would be set for early in 2009. So there would be that period of time, essentially a year, within which to begin a lot of this work.

We should be careful as well, I'm reminded. Given the unique location, we're probably not talking about anywhere near the number of designated species that might have been the case elsewhere, so it's manageable. But I agree. It's one part of a much larger document. I wanted to alert the member to the fact that we're probably looking at an effective date in late '08 and more likely in early '09.

During that period of time there will be a lot of work that will need to be done so that when we arrive at that effective date, many of these measures are in place and there is that certainty.

S. Simpson: I'll just take that for the moment. I agree that it will take time. This isn't as complex. When we get to the next treaty this may be a much bigger question.

Section 45 says: "The Minister may approve a method of harvesting that differs from those methods permitted under Federal or Provincial Law if the Minister is satisfied that the method is consistent with public safety." What's envisioned here, to have included this clause in the agreement? What are you thinking about?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It's a good question.

I was trying to think of examples that would explain the presence of the section here. The one that immediately came to my mind, which I think the member is familiar with, is the decision that recently came from the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding night hunting.

The Supreme Court didn't provide a blanket exclusion to the usual prohibition but said that subject to safety considerations, there could be circumstances — cultural, historical — where that would be permitted and obliged the provincial Crown to realign the regulations to take account of that fact.

As I say, it didn't provide for a blanket exclusion from the usual prohibition but said that there is a different set of rules at play here. That is one example that would explain the presence of the section.

S. Simpson: So then, what would have to happen here? Just so I can understand this. If there were unique methods of harvesting that were different than what's conventional under the law, those would need to be identified, included in a harvest plan and then the minister may deem to allow those things to happen differently than from what is law, once the plan was signed off on? But would those things have to be incorporated into a plan, and then the government may say okay?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I can confirm what the member said. In a situation where there is a harvest plan, that kind of deviation — if that's the correct term — would have to be referred to specifically in the harvest plan. In the example I gave, I think that there's broader policy work taking place, because the order from the court was to bring the overall regulatory framework into sync. But yes, in the case of a harvest plan, that would have to be referred specifically to in the harvest plan.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join this debate on chapter 10, "Wildlife." Having a background in wildlife myself, I've found it very interesting so far, but a little bit difficult to follow at times. So I may have to ask the minister some questions that aren't all that different than those that have been asked.

I wanted to start by saying that if you look at the wildlife harvest area, a lot of it is in the metropolitan urban area, so I don't think that the Tsawwassen First Nation are going to find a lot of wildlife to harvest there. It's the area up in the region of Pitt Lake, which is my neck of the woods, where there is some wildlife. In fact, at the north end of the lake, the Upper Pitt, there have now been elk transplanted to the area as well.

But that whole area — the Pitt, right from the mouth of the Pitt, it's confluence at the Fraser, all the way up above the top of the lake — is the heart of the traditional territory also of the Katzie First Nation. Those that are living on reserve live in Pitt Meadows, on Barnston Island and in Langley.

I wanted to ask the minister: in the course of the negotiations around this, did the negotiators discuss with the Katzie First Nation the issue of wildlife harvest and the establishment of a wildlife harvest area in their traditional territory?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. First of all, I do want to take advantage of the question to, again, emphasize that in dealing with these wildlife provisions within the wildlife harvest area, we are not talking about exclusive rights — rights that are exclusive to the Tsawwassen — and they cannot be exercised in a way that detracts from the aboriginal rights of other aboriginal peoples and first nations. That's the first thing.

The agreement in certain provisions specifically also references and provides for participation by others and other first nations through a regional first nation advisory group. So the agreement tries to take into account the obvious interest that other people and other aboriginal peoples and first nations would have in this issue.

I'm sure that we'll take this up later, but I note the hour, Madam Chair, and I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today the member for Cariboo North sought to raise a point of order regarding the timing of presenting an answer to a question taken on notice during oral question period.

It has been a longstanding practice in this House that the minister may take a question on notice to be answered at a later date. The determination of when to return with the answer is at the discretion of the minister and not a matter that the Chair rules upon. Answers to questions taken on notice are normally presented after question period so as not to take up the time of question period.

The member also commented upon the taking of notice on behalf of another minister by the Government House Leader. Due to the special nature of the House

Leader's role in the House, that taking of notice on behalf of another minister is similar to the longstanding practice whereby the Government House Leader may move a motion on behalf of another minister.

For further comment on question period, I would refer the members to Speaker Schroeder's ruling of June 30, 1982, and Speaker Sawicki's ruling of April 13, 1992.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY